Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62017CN0064

Case C-64/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 7 February 2017 — Saey Home & Garden NV/SA v Lusavouga — Máquinas e Acessórios Industriais, S.A.

OJ C 112, 10.4.2017, p. 28–29 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

10.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/28


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 7 February 2017 — Saey Home & Garden NV/SA v Lusavouga — Máquinas e Acessórios Industriais, S.A.

(Case C-64/17)

(2017/C 112/38)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Saey Home & Garden NV/SA

Defendant: Lusavouga — Máquinas e Acessórios Industriais, S.A.

Questions referred

1

Must the action be brought before the Belgian courts, in accordance with the basic rule set out in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, (1) because Belgium is the Member State in which the defendant has its seat and is in fact domiciled?

2

Must the action be brought before the Portuguese courts, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) and (c) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), because it relates to a commercial concession agreement and Portugal is the Member State where the mutual obligations under the agreement should have been performed?

3

Must the action be brought before the Spanish courts, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) and (c) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), because it relates to a commercial concession agreement and Spain is the Member State where the mutual obligations under the agreement should have been performed?

4

Must the action be brought before the Portuguese courts, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) and (b), first indent, of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), because it relates to a framework commercial concession agreement which, as between the applicant and the defendant, can be broken down into various contracts of sale and all the goods sold were due to be delivered in Portugal, and were actually delivered there on 21 January 2014?

5

Must the action be brought before the Belgian courts, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) and (b), first indent, of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), because it relates to a framework commercial concession agreement which, as between the applicant and the defendant, can be broken down into various contracts of sale and all the goods sold were delivered by Saey to Lousavaga in Belgium?

6

Must the action be brought before the Spanish courts, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) and (b), first indent, of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), because it relates to a framework commercial concession agreement which, as between Lousavaga and Saey, can be broken down into various contracts of sale and all the goods sold were intended to be delivered to Spain, pursuant to transactions carried out in that Member State?

7

Must the action be brought before the Portuguese courts, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) and (b), second indent, of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), because it relates to a framework commercial concession agreement which, as between Lousavaga and Saey, took the form of a supply of services by Lousavaga to Saey, with the former promoting business that was indirectly in the latter’s interests?

8

Must the action be brought before the Spanish courts, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) and (b), second indent, of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), because it relates to a framework commercial concession agreement which, as between Lousavaga and Saey took the form of a supply of services by Lousavaga to Saey, with the former promoting business that was indirectly in the latter’s interests through activity carried out in Spain?

9

Must the action be brought before the Portuguese courts, in accordance with Article 7(5) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), because it relates to a commercial concession agreement and the dispute between Lousavaga and Saey is comparable to a dispute between a principal (or ‘grantor’ of the concession) and an agent in Portugal?

10

Must the action be brought before the Spanish courts, in accordance with Article 7(5) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), because it relates to a commercial concession agreement and the dispute between Lousavaga and Saey is comparable to a dispute between a principal (or ‘grantor’ of the concession) and an agent deemed to be situated in Spain because the contractual obligations are to be performed there?

11

Must the action be brought before the Belgian courts, specifically before a court in Kortrijk, in accordance with Article 25(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), since under point 20 of the general conditions applicable to all the sales made by Saey to Lousavaga the parties entered into an agreement conferring jurisdiction, which was in writing and fully valid under Belgian law, according to which ‘any dispute of any nature whatsoever shall be the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Kortrijk’?

12

Under the provisions of Sections 2 to 7 of Chapter II of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), must the action be brought before the Portuguese courts because the main connecting factors of the contractual relationship between the applicant and the defendant are with the territory and legal system of Portugal?

13

Under the provisions of Sections 2 to 7 of Chapter II of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), must the action be brought before the Spanish courts because the main connecting factors of the contractual relationship between the applicant and the defendant are with the territory and legal system of Spain?


(1)  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 (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).


Top