This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017CA0306
Case C-306/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tatabányai Törvényszék — Hungary) — Éva Nothartová v Sámson József Boldizsár (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Article 8(3) — Counterclaim arising or not arising from the same contract or facts on which the original claim was based)
Case C-306/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tatabányai Törvényszék — Hungary) — Éva Nothartová v Sámson József Boldizsár (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Article 8(3) — Counterclaim arising or not arising from the same contract or facts on which the original claim was based)
Case C-306/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tatabányai Törvényszék — Hungary) — Éva Nothartová v Sámson József Boldizsár (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Article 8(3) — Counterclaim arising or not arising from the same contract or facts on which the original claim was based)
IO C 259, 23.7.2018, p. 12–13
(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:
- 31/05/2018
- Date lodged:
- 26/05/2017
- Author:
- An Chúirt Bhreithiúnais
- Form:
- Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
- Authentic language:
- Ungáiris
- Type of procedure:
- Tarchur le haghaidh réamhrialú
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Related EU case-law document 62017CJ0306
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
Case C-306/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tatabányai Törvényszék — Hungary) — Éva Nothartová v Sámson József Boldizsár (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Article 8(3) — Counterclaim arising or not arising from the same contract or facts on which the original claim was based)
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tatabányai Törvényszék — Hungary) — Éva Nothartová v Sámson József Boldizsár
(Case C-306/17) ( 1 )
‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Article 8(3) — Counterclaim arising or not arising from the same contract or facts on which the original claim was based)’
2018/C 259/16Language of the case: HungarianReferring court
Tatabányai Törvényszék
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Éva Nothartová
Defendant: Sámson József Boldizsár
Operative part of the judgment
Article 8(3) 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 must be interpreted as applying, not exclusively, in a situation in which the court with jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim alleging infringement of the applicant’s personality rights, on the ground that photographs were taken and videos recorded without his knowledge, is seised by the defendant bringing a counterclaim for compensation on the ground that the applicant is liable in tort, delict or quasi-delict for, inter alia, restrictions on his intellectual creations, which are the subject of the original application, where, when examining the counterclaim, that court is required to assess the lawfulness of the actions on which the applicant bases its own claims.
( 1 ) OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.
