Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62012CN0548

    Case C-548/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld (Germany) lodged on 30 November 2012 — Marc Brogsitter v Fabrication de Montres Normandes Eurl, Karsten Fräßdorf

    OJ C 101, 6.4.2013, p. 5–6 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    6.4.2013   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 101/5


    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld (Germany) lodged on 30 November 2012 — Marc Brogsitter v Fabrication de Montres Normandes Eurl, Karsten Fräßdorf

    (Case C-548/12)

    2013/C 101/11

    Language of the case: German

    Referring court

    Landgericht Krefeld

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant and defendant to the counterclaim: Marc Brogsitter

    Defendants and counterclaimants: Fabrication de Montres Normandes Eurl, Karsten Fräßdorf

    Question referred

    Must Article 5(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a claimant who alleges that he has suffered damage by an anticompetitive act of his contractual partner domiciled in another Contracting State, which is to be regarded in German law as a tortious act, is raising claims against that person based on contract, even in so far as he bases his action on claims relating to tort?


    (1)  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.


    Top