# C_2020279EN.01002501.xml

| 24.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 5 May 2020 — Laudamotion GmbH v Verein für Konsumenteninformation

(Case C-189/20)

(2020/C 279/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Laudamotion GmbH

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, (1) in particular Article 25, Article 17(3) and Article 19, and in any event in the light of Article 67, to be interpreted as precluding a review of unfairness of international agreements conferring jurisdiction in accordance with Directive 93/13/EEC (2) or the corresponding national implementing provisions? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, (1) in particular Article 25, Article 17(3) and Article 19, and in any event in the light of Article 67, to be interpreted as precluding a review of unfairness of international agreements conferring jurisdiction in accordance with Directive 93/13/EEC (2) or the corresponding national implementing provisions?

| 2. | Is the last clause of the first sentence of Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (‘unless the agreement is null and void as to its substantive validity under the law of that Member State’) to be interpreted as meaning that it opens up the possibility — which extends even beyond the area of harmonised law — of a substantive review in accordance with the national law of the Member State on which jurisdiction has been conferred via prorogation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the last clause of the first sentence of Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (‘unless the agreement is null and void as to its substantive validity under the law of that Member State’) to be interpreted as meaning that it opens up the possibility — which extends even beyond the area of harmonised law — of a substantive review in accordance with the national law of the Member State on which jurisdiction has been conferred via prorogation?

| 3. | In the event that Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the negative:
  Are the national implementing provisions applicable to a review of unfairness in accordance with Directive 93/13/EEC determined by the law of the Member State on which jurisdiction has been conferred via prorogation or by the lex causae of the Member State seised? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the negative:

Are the national implementing provisions applicable to a review of unfairness in accordance with Directive 93/13/EEC determined by the law of the Member State on which jurisdiction has been conferred via prorogation or by the lex causae of the Member State seised?

---

(1)  Regulation 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).

(2)  Council Directive of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

---