Vice-President R Silva de Lapuerta,
Presidents of Chambers J‑C Bonichot, A Arabadjiev, A Prechal,
Judges T von Danwitz, C Toader, M Safjan (Rapporteur), D Šváby, S Rodin, K Jürimäe, C Lycourgos, PG Xuereb
Advocate General H Saugmandsgaard Øe
The claimant, which ran a hotel in Germany, concluded a contract with the defendant, a company based in The Netherlands which operated a well-known accommodation booking platform. The claimant objected to the inclusion in the contract of a new version of the general terms and conditions, which it claimed it had no choice but to conclude on account of the strong position held by the defendant on the market for intermediary services and accommodation reservation portals. The claimant brought an action before a German regional court seeking an injunction to prohibit the defendant from using certain business practices which it alleged were contrary to German competition law. The court decided that it lacked territorial and international jurisdiction, a decision upheld by a higher regional court, which found that, apart from the fact that German courts had no general jurisdiction under Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (the Brussels Ia Regulation) because the defendant had its seat in The Netherlands, neither the special jurisdiction of the court for the place of performance of the contractual obligation, under article 7(1)(a) of the Regulation, nor that of the court for the place where the harmful event occurred in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, under article 7(2), was established. On the claimant’s appeal, the Federal Court of Justice, Germany stayed the proceedings and referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling the question, in essence, whether article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation applied to an action seeking an injunction against certain anti-competitive practices implemented in the context of the contractual relationship.
On the reference—
Held, where a claimant relied on either rule of special jurisdiction under article 7(1)(a) or under article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation, the court hearing the action had to ascertain whether the claims related to “a contract” or “ to tort, delict or quasi-delict”, in particular by examining the obligation which constituted the cause of action. An action concerned matters relating to a contract, within the meaning of article 7(1)(a), if the interpretation of the contract was indispensable to establish the lawful or unlawful nature of the conduct complained of. By contrast, where the claimant relied on rules of liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict, namely breach of an obligation imposed by law, and where it did not appear indispensable to examine the content of the contract in order to assess such conduct, the cause of the action was a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of article 7(2). The legal issue at the heart of the present case was whether the defendant had infringed German competition law which laid down a general prohibition of abuse of a dominant position, independently of any contract or other voluntary commitment. Therefore it was not indispensable to interpret the contract. Thus, subject to verification by the referring court, the claimant’s action was a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation and the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred, namely where the claimant’s hotel was situated, had jurisdiction (judgment, paras 24, 26, 30–31, 32–33, 35–36, 38, operative part).
V Soyez and C Aufdermauer for the claimant.
T Winter, N Hermann, L Alexy and C Bauch for the defendant.
M Smolek, J Vláčil and A Kasalická, agents, for the Czech Government.
M Heller and G Meessen, agents, for the European Commission.