- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-595/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Apple Sales International, Apple Inc., Apple retail France EURL v MJA, acting as liquidator of eBizcuss.com (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Article 23 – Jurisdiction clause in a distribution contract – Action for damages by the distributor based on the infringement of Article 102 TFEU by the supplier)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CA0595
62017CA0595
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 4/9
(Case C-595/17) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 23 - Jurisdiction clause in a distribution contract - Action for damages by the distributor based on the infringement of Article 102 TFEU by the supplier)
(2019/C 4/12)
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Apple Sales International, Apple Inc., Apple retail France EURL
Defendants: MJA, acting as liquidator of eBizcuss.com
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the application, in the context of an action for damages brought by a distributor against its supplier on the basis of Article 102 TFEU, of a jurisdiction clause within the contract binding the parties is not excluded on the sole ground that that clause does not expressly refer to disputes relating to liability incurred as a result of an infringement of competition law.
2.Article 23 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not a prerequisite for the application of a jurisdiction clause, in the context of an action for damages brought by a distributor against its supplier on the basis of Article 102 TFEU, that there be a finding of an infringement of competition law by a national or European authority.
Language of the case: French
(1) OJ C 437,18.12.2017.