EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020CN0591
Case C-591/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 11 November 2020 — Reprensus GmbH v S-V Pavlovi Trejd EOOD
Case C-591/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 11 November 2020 — Reprensus GmbH v S-V Pavlovi Trejd EOOD
Case C-591/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 11 November 2020 — Reprensus GmbH v S-V Pavlovi Trejd EOOD
OJ C 35, 1.2.2021, p. 32–32
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
1.2.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 35/32 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 11 November 2020 — Reprensus GmbH v S-V Pavlovi Trejd EOOD
(Case C-591/20)
(2021/C 35/44)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Bundesgerichtshof
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant and appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Reprensus GmbH
Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: S-V Pavlovi Trejd EOOD
Question referred
Are points 1(a) and 2 of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) (OJ 2012 L 351) to be interpreted as meaning that jurisdiction for matters relating to tort or delict exists in respect of an action for damages if the applicant was induced to conclude a purchase contract and pay the purchase price by means of intentional deception?