CELEX: 62012CA0387
Language: en
Date: 2014-04-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-387/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Hi Hotel HCF SARL v Uwe Spoering (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — International jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Act committed in one Member State consisting in participation in an act of tort or delict committed in another Member State — Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred)

26.5.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 159/4
            
         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Hi Hotel HCF SARL v Uwe Spoering
   (Case C-387/12) (1)
   
   ((Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - International jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Act committed in one Member State consisting in participation in an act of tort or delict committed in another Member State - Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred))
   2014/C 159/05
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Bundesgerichtshof
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Hi Hotel HCF SARL
   
      Defendant: Uwe Spoering
   
      Re:
   
   Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of 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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — International jurisdiction in respect of tort, delict or quasi-delict — Act committed in one Member State and consisting in assistance in the commission of an unlawful act in the territory of a second Member State — Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   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, where there are several supposed perpetrators of damage allegedly caused to rights of copyright protected in the Member State of the court seised, that provision does not allow jurisdiction to be established, on the basis of the causal event of the damage, of a court within whose jurisdiction the supposed perpetrator who is being sued did not act, but does allow the jurisdiction of that court to be established on the basis of the place where the alleged damage occurs, provided that the damage may occur within the jurisdiction of the court seised. If that is the case, the court has jurisdiction only to rule on the damage caused in the territory of the Member State to which it belongs.
   
      (1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.