CELEX: 62017CA0595
Language: en
Date: 2018-10-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-595/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Apple Sales International, Apple Inc., Apple retail France EURL v MJA, acting as liquidator of eBizcuss.com (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Article 23 – Jurisdiction clause in a distribution contract – Action for damages by the distributor based on the infringement of Article 102 TFEU by the supplier)

7.1.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 4/9
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Apple Sales International, Apple Inc., Apple retail France EURL v MJA, acting as liquidator of eBizcuss.com
      (Case C-595/17) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 23 - Jurisdiction clause in a distribution contract - Action for damages by the distributor based on the infringement of Article 102 TFEU by the supplier)
      (2019/C 4/12)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Referring court
      
      Cour de cassation
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicants: Apple Sales International, Apple Inc., Apple retail France EURL
      
         Defendants: MJA, acting as liquidator of eBizcuss.com
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Article 23 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 the application, in the context of an action for damages brought by a distributor against its supplier on the basis of Article 102 TFEU, of a jurisdiction clause within the contract binding the parties is not excluded on the sole ground that that clause does not expressly refer to disputes relating to liability incurred as a result of an infringement of competition law.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Article 23 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not a prerequisite for the application of a jurisdiction clause, in the context of an action for damages brought by a distributor against its supplier on the basis of Article 102 TFEU, that there be a finding of an infringement of competition law by a national or European authority.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 437,18.12.2017.