Case C‑306/17
Éva Nothartová
v
Sámson József Boldizsár
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tatabányai Törvényszék)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Article 8(3) — Counterclaim arising or not arising from the same contract or facts on which the original claim was based)
Summary — Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 31 May 2018
Judicial cooperation in civil matters—Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters—Regulation No 1215/2012—Special jurisdiction—Counterclaim within the meaning of Article 8(3)—Non-exclusive jurisdiction
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Art. 8(3))
Judicial cooperation in civil matters—Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters—Regulation No 1215/2012—Special jurisdiction—Counterclaim within the meaning of Article 8(3)—Counterclaim based on the same facts as the original claim—Counterclaim for compensation in respect of restrictions on intellectual creations that are the subject of the original application, the latter being founded on a claim alleging infringement of the applicant’s personality rights—Included—Condition
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Art. 8(3))
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 26, 27)
Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as applying, not exclusively, in a situation in which the court with jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim alleging infringement of the applicant’s personality rights, on the ground that photographs were taken and videos recorded without his knowledge, is seised by the defendant bringing a counterclaim for compensation on the ground that the applicant is liable in tort, delict or quasi-delict for, inter alia, restrictions on his intellectual creations, which are the subject of the original application, where, when examining the counterclaim, that court is required to assess the lawfulness of the actions on which the applicant bases its own claims.
(see para. 29, operative part)