- 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-45/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 28 January 2013 — Andreas Kainz AG v Pantherwerke AG
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CN0045
62013CN0045
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
25.5.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 147/2
(Case C-45/13)
2013/C 147/04
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Andreas Kainz
Defendant: Pantherwerke AG
Questions referred
Is the ‘place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 to be interpreted, in relation to product liability, as meaning:
1.1that the place of the event giving rise to the damage (Handlungsort) is the place where the manufacturer is established;
1.2that the place of the event giving rise to the damage (Handlungsort) is the place where the product is put into circulation;
1.3that the place of the event giving rise to the damage (Handlungsort) is the place where the product is put into circulation;
If Question 1.2 is answered in the affirmative:
2.1Is the product put into circulation when it has left the manufacturing process operated by the producer and enters a marketing process in the form in which it is offered to the public in order to be used or consumed?
2.2Is the product put into circulation when it is marketed in a structured way to end-users?
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).
* * *