English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

espanolEn esta sentencia, el Tribunal de Justicia responde a una cuestion prejudicial planteada por la Cour de Cassation francesa, en relacion con un litigio surgido de un contrato de distribucion selectiva entre Samsung y la empresa francesa distribuidora Concurrence. En virtud de este contrato, Concurrence solo podia revender los productos ELITE de Samsung a traves de su tienda fisica, no mediante su pagina web. La empresa distribuidora infringe esta clausula y comercializa los productos via on line. Ante este incumplimiento contractual, Samsung rescinde el contrato y Concurrence demanda a la empresa proveedora porque, segun dice, Amazon tambien vende esos productos de Samsung en su pagina web, con su consentimiento. Tambien solicita que Amazon cese en su comportamiento por el perjuicio que le ocasionan sus ventas on line. La cuestion prejudicial se plantea entorno a esta ultima accion de cesacion planteada por Concurrence contra Amazon Reino Unido, Amazon Alemania, Amazon Espana y Amazon Italia. El Tribunal de Justicia considera que los tribunales franceses deben ser competentes por el articulo 5.3 del Reglamento 44/2001 –actual articulo 7.2 del Reglamento 12125/2012–, si en Francia la empresa Concurrence ha sufrido dano debido a las reventas realizadas por Amazon a traves de esas paginas web ubicadas fuera de Francia. En este caso, siendo el demandado Amazon Reino Unido, Amazon Alemania, Amazon Espana y Amazon Italia, ni por el domicilio del mismo ni por el lugar del hecho ilicito, los jueces franceses podrian ser competentes, solo podrian serlo por el lugar del dano. Nosotros entendemos que Concurrence es una victima indirecta del comportamiento de Amazon y que, por lo tanto, no se puede aplicar el foro del articulo 5.3 del Reglamento 44/2001 –actual articulo 7.2 del Reglamento 1215/2012– en este caso. EnglishIn this judgment, the Court answers to a prejudicial question held by French Cour of Cassation, regarding to a litigation on a selective distribution agreement between Samsung and Concurrence. This contract disposes that Concurrence only can resell the Samsung ELITE products through the products on line. For this reason, Samsung ends their relationship and Concurrence brings an action against it because it says that Amazon also sells these products of Samsung on its webpage. In addition, Concurrence sues Amazon to withdraw the sales of these products because of the damage suffered for them. The prejudicial question is regarding this action for an injunction prohibiting unlawful interference, between Concurrence and Amazon United Kingdom, Amazon Germany, Amazon Spain and Amazon Italy. The Court considers the French jurisdiction has to apply the rule of article 5.3 Regulation 44/2001 –article 7.2 Regulation 1215/2012–, in case of there are damages suffered by Concurrence in France due to sales of Amazon on these webpages situated out of France. Following the Court, in this situation, as the defendant would be Amazon United Kingdom, Amazon Germany, Amazon Spain and Amazon Italy, the French jurisdiction couldn`t be competent by domicile of defendant neither by place where harmful event occurred. It only could be competent by the place of occurred damage. We consider that Concurrence is a indirect victim and, so that, couldn`t apply the article 5.3 Regulation 44/2001 –article 7.2 Regulation 1215/2012– in this case.

cuadernos de derecho transnacional

Aplicación del foro del Artículo 5.3 del reglamento 44/2001 en casos de víctimas indirectas. Comentario a la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, 21 diciembre 2016, Concurrence, C-618/15 = Rule of jurisdiction of Article 5.3 Regulation 44/2001 in cases of indirect victims. Commentary of Judgment of the Court, 21 december 2016, Concurrence, C-618/15