# C_2016156EN.01001901.xml

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — Taser International Inc. v SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu

(Case C-175/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Contracts imposing an obligation on a Romanian undertaking to assign trade marks to an undertaking with its seat in a third country - Refusal - Clause conferring jurisdiction on a third country - Defendant entering an appearance before the Romanian courts without raising an objection - Applicable rules on jurisdiction))

(2016/C 156/26)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Taser International Inc.

Applicant:

Defendants: SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 23(5) and 24 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 that, in a dispute concerning the non-performance of a contractual obligation, in which the applicant has brought proceedings before the courts of the Member State in which the defendant has its seat, the jurisdiction of those courts may stem from Article 24 of that regulation, where the defendant does not dispute their jurisdiction, even though the contract between the two parties contains a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a third country. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 23(5) and 24 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 that, in a dispute concerning the non-performance of a contractual obligation, in which the applicant has brought proceedings before the courts of the Member State in which the defendant has its seat, the jurisdiction of those courts may stem from Article 24 of that regulation, where the defendant does not dispute their jurisdiction, even though the contract between the two parties contains a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a third country.

| 2. | Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as precluding, in a dispute between parties to a contract which contains a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a third country, the court of the Member State in which the defendant has its seat, which has been seised, from declaring of its own motion that it does not have jurisdiction, even though the defendant does not contest the jurisdiction of that court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as precluding, in a dispute between parties to a contract which contains a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a third country, the court of the Member State in which the defendant has its seat, which has been seised, from declaring of its own motion that it does not have jurisdiction, even though the defendant does not contest the jurisdiction of that court.

---

(1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.

1

---