Case C-196/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Granarolo SpA v Ambrosi Emmi France SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 5(1) and (3) — Court having jurisdiction — Concepts of ‘matters relating to a contract’ and ‘matters relating to tort or delict’ — Abrupt termination of a long-standing business relationship — Action for damages — Concepts of ‘sale of goods’ and ‘provision of services’)
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: damages, goods and services, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, mutual recognition principle, provision of services, sale, trade relations








C_2016335EN.01001802.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/18





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Granarolo SpA v Ambrosi Emmi France SA
(Case C-196/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 5(1) and (3) - Court having jurisdiction - Concepts of ‘matters relating to a contract’ and ‘matters relating to tort or delict’ - Abrupt termination of a long-standing business relationship - Action for damages - Concepts of ‘sale of goods’ and ‘provision of services’))
(2016/C 335/24)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Granarolo SpA

Defendant: Ambrosi Emmi France SA

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 5(3) 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 an action for damages founded on an abrupt termination of a long-standing business relationship, such as the termination at issue in the main proceedings, is not a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of that regulation if a tacit contractual relationship existed between the parties, a matter which is for the referring court to ascertain. Demonstration of the existence of a tacit contractual relationship of that kind must be based on a body of consistent evidence, which may include in particular the existence of a long-standing business relationship, the good faith between the parties, the regularity of the transactions and their development over time expressed in terms of quantity and value, any agreements as to prices charged and/or discounts granted, and the correspondence exchanged.










2.


Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that a long-standing business relationship, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is to be classified as a ‘contract for the sale of goods’ if the characteristic obligation of the contract at issue is the supply of goods or as a ‘contract for the provision of services’ if the characteristic obligation is a supply of services, a matter which is for the referring court to determine.






(1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.