EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CA0478
Case C-478/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Feldkirch — Austria) — Armin Maletic, Marianne Maletic v lastminute.com GmbH, TUI Österreich GmbH (Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 16(1) — Contract for travel concluded between a consumer domiciled in one Member State and a travel agency established in another Member State — Supplier of services used by the travel agency established in the Member State where the consumer is domiciled — Right of a consumer to bring an action against two undertakings before the court for the place of his domicile)
Case C-478/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Feldkirch — Austria) — Armin Maletic, Marianne Maletic v lastminute.com GmbH, TUI Österreich GmbH (Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 16(1) — Contract for travel concluded between a consumer domiciled in one Member State and a travel agency established in another Member State — Supplier of services used by the travel agency established in the Member State where the consumer is domiciled — Right of a consumer to bring an action against two undertakings before the court for the place of his domicile)
Case C-478/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Feldkirch — Austria) — Armin Maletic, Marianne Maletic v lastminute.com GmbH, TUI Österreich GmbH (Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 16(1) — Contract for travel concluded between a consumer domiciled in one Member State and a travel agency established in another Member State — Supplier of services used by the travel agency established in the Member State where the consumer is domiciled — Right of a consumer to bring an action against two undertakings before the court for the place of his domicile)
OJ C 9, 11.1.2014, p. 14–14
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 14/11/2013
- Date lodged:
- 24/10/2012
- Author:
- Court of Justice
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- German
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
11.1.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 9/14 |
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Feldkirch — Austria) — Armin Maletic, Marianne Maletic v lastminute.com GmbH, TUI Österreich GmbH
(Case C-478/12) (1)
(Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 16(1) - Contract for travel concluded between a consumer domiciled in one Member State and a travel agency established in another Member State - Supplier of services used by the travel agency established in the Member State where the consumer is domiciled - Right of a consumer to bring an action against two undertakings before the court for the place of his domicile)
2014/C 9/20
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Landesgericht Feldkirch
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Armin Maletic, Marianne Maletic
Defendant: lastminute.com GmbH, TUI Österreich GmbH
Re:
Request for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Feldkirch — Interpretation of Article 16(1) 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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction in respect of contracts entered into by consumers — All-inclusive travel contract concluded between a consumer and a company — Situation in which the company is established in a Member State other than that of the consumer and has recourse, for the purpose of performing that contract, to a company which is established in the Member State of the consumer — Whether the consumer is entitled to bring proceedings, before the court of his place of residence, against those two companies
Operative part of the judgment
The concept of ‘other party to the contract’ laid down in Article 16(1) 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, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, that it also covers the contracting partner of the operator with which the consumer concluded that contract and which has its registered office in the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled.
