Case C‑618/15

Concurrence Sàrl

v

Samsung Electronics France SAS
and
Amazon Services Europe Sàrl

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France))

(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)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 21 December 2016

1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters—Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters—Regulation No 44/2001—Special jurisdiction—Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict—Place where the damage occurred—Meaning—Place where the damage occurred and place of the event giving rise to it

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 5(3))

2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters—Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters—Regulation No 44/2001—Special jurisdiction—Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict—Place where the damage occurred—Harm caused by the infringement of a prohibition on online resale outside a selective distribution network—Jurisdiction of the Member State protecting the prohibition on sale—Scope—Limits

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 5(3)

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 25-28)

2.  Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 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.

   First of all, the likelihood of damage occurring in a particular Member State is subject to the condition that the right whose infringement is alleged is protected in that Member State. Thus, where the protection granted by the Member State of the place of the court seised is applicable only in that Member State, that court has jurisdiction only to determine the damage caused within the Member State in which it is situated. Then, in the event of infringement, by means of a website, of the conditions of a selective distribution network, the damage which the distributor may claim is the reduction in the volume of its sales resulting from the sales made in breach of the conditions of the network and the ensuing loss of profits. In that regard, the fact that the websites on which the offer of the products covered by the selective distribution right appears operate in Member States other than that of the court seised is irrelevant, as long as the events which occurred in those Member States resulted in or may result in the alleged damage in the jurisdiction of the court seised, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

   (see paras 30, 31, 33-35, operative part)