CELEX: 62014CN0297
Language: en
Date: 2014-06-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-297/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 17 June 2014  — Rüdiger Hobohm v Benedikt Kampik Ltd & Co., Benedikt Aloysius Kampik, Mar Mediterraneo Werbe- und Vertriebsgesellschaft für Immobilien SL

8.9.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 303/22
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 17 June 2014 — Rüdiger Hobohm v Benedikt Kampik Ltd & Co., Benedikt Aloysius Kampik, Mar Mediterraneo Werbe- und Vertriebsgesellschaft für Immobilien SL
   (Case C-297/14)
   2014/C 303/29
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Bundesgerichtshof
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Rüdiger Hobohm
   
      Defendants: Benedikt Kampik Ltd & Co., Benedikt Aloysius Kampik, Mar Mediterraneo Werbe- und Vertriebsgesellschaft für Immobilien SL
   
      Question referred
   
   
               –
            
            
               Can a consumer, pursuant to the second alternative in Article 15(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in conjunction with the second alternative in Article 16(1) of the regulation, bring proceedings in the courts for the place where he is domiciled against the other party to the contract, who pursues commercial or professional activities in another Member State of the European Union if, whilst the contract underlying the proceedings does not fall directly within the scope of such activities of the other party to the contract which are directed to the Member State of the consumer’s domicile, the contract serves, however, to achieve the economic result that is sought by another contract — previously concluded between the parties and already performed — which falls within the scope of the aforementioned provisions?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.