Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Tibor-Trans Fuvarozó és Kereskedelmi Kft. v DAF TRUCKS N.V.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Ítélőtábla.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Special jurisdiction — Article 7(2) — Tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the harmful event occurred — Claim for compensation for damage caused by a cartel found to be contrary to Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.
Case C-451/18. (2019)
Language: English

In those circumstances, the Győri Ítélőtábla (Győr Regional Court of Appeal, Hungary) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘Should the rule on special jurisdiction laid down in Article 7(2) of Regulation … No 1215/2012 … be interpreted as meaning that the court of a Member State has jurisdiction as the court for the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’, where:
–the domicile or principal place of economic activity or of the financial interests of the applicant [in the main proceedings] who claims to have suffered the damage or loss is in the State in question;
–the claim brought by the applicant [in the main proceedings] — which is against a single defendant, namely a truck manufacturer domiciled in another Member State … — is based on an infringement [established] by [a decision of] the European Commission under Article 101(1) [TFEU], consisting of collusive arrangements on pricing and gross price increases in the EEA, and the decision is addressed to other parties in addition to the defendant [in the main proceedings];
–the applicant [in the main proceedings] only purchased trucks manufactured by other undertakings involved in the cartel;
–there is nothing to show that any of the meetings that were found to restrict competition were held in the [Member] State of the court seised;
–the applicant [in the main proceedings] generally purchased the trucks — in its view, at distorted prices — in the [Member] State of the court seised, and to that end it entered into financial leasing agreements involving definite transfer of ownership with undertakings that operated in that State but, according to its own statements, the applicant negotiated directly with the vehicle dealerships, and the lessor added its own profit margin and the leasing costs onto the prices agreed by the applicant, and the right of ownership over the vehicles was transferred to the applicant on completion of the leasing agreement, when it expired?’

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "The Győri Ítélőtábla (Győr Regional Court of Appeal, Hungary)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The Court of Justice"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "The Győri Ítélőtábla (Győr Regional Court of Appeal, Hungary)"->"Stay the proceedings"[dir=none];
   "The Győri Ítélőtábla (Győr Regional Court of Appeal, Hungary)"->"Question for a preliminary ruling";
   "Question for a preliminary ruling"->"The Court of Justice";
   "Question for a preliminary ruling"->"Should the rule on special jurisdiction laid down in Article 7(2) of Regulation … No 1215/2012 … be interpreted as meaning that the court of a Member State has jurisdiction as the court for the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ of ownership over the vehicles was transferred to the applicant on completion of the leasing agreement, when it expired?"[dir=none];
    
}