EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62015CA0618

Case C-618/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Concurrence SARL v Samsung Electronics France SAS, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction — Tort, delict or quasi-delict — Selective distribution network — Prohibition on online resale outside a network — Action for an injunction prohibiting unlawful interference — Connecting factor)

OJ C 53, 20.2.2017, p. 18–18 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

20.2.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/18


Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Concurrence SARL v Samsung Electronics France SAS, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl

(Case C-618/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction - Tort, delict or quasi-delict - Selective distribution network - Prohibition on online resale outside a network - Action for an injunction prohibiting unlawful interference - Connecting factor))

(2017/C 053/21)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Concurrence SARL

Defendants: Samsung Electronics France SAS, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) 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, for the purpose of conferring the jurisdiction given by that provision to hear an action to establish liability for infringement of the prohibition on resale outside a selective distribution network resulting from offers, on websites operated in various Member States, of products covered by that network, as meaning that the place where the damage occurred is to be regarded as the territory of the Member State which protects the prohibition on resale by means of the action at issue, a territory on which the appellant alleges to have suffered a reduction in its sales.


(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


Top