Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 16 January 2014

Andreas Kainz v Pantherwerke AG

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Liability for a defective product — Product manufactured in one Member State and sold in another Member State — Interpretation of the concept of ‘the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ — Place of the event giving rise to the damage

Case C‑45/13


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
07/03/2014 Kainz
View pdf documents
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2014:7
16/01/2014 Kainz
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2014:7
16/01/2014 Kainz
Application (OJ)
03/05/2013 Kainz
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Request for a preliminary ruling – Oberster Gerichtshof – Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) – Product liability – Goods produced in a Member State and sold in another Member State – Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur – Situation in which the place where the damage occurred (‘Erfolgsort’) is in the State where the goods were produced – Interpretation of the concept of the ‘place of the event giving rise to [the damage]’ (‘Handlungsort’)

Systematic classification scheme

1.
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.06 Area of freedom, security and justice
    4.06.02 Judicial cooperation in civil matters
      4.06.02.01 Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments – Civil and commercial matters


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

  • Directive 85/374 -A11 : paragraph 10
  • Regulation 44/2001 : paragraphs 19, 20, 21
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A02P1 : paragraphs 5, 21
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A03P1 : paragraph 6
  • Regulation 44/2001 -A05PT3 : paragraphs 1, 7, 13, 17, 18, 21, 23, 27, 31 - 33
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C11 : paragraph 3
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C12 : paragraph 3
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C15 : paragraph 3
  • Regulation 44/2001 -C2 : paragraph 3
  • Regulation 864/2007 : paragraph 20
  • Regulation 864/2007 -A05 : paragraph 9
  • Regulation 864/2007 -C7 : paragraphs 8, 20
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -189/08 : paragraphs 19, 23, 26, 27
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -133/11 : paragraph 31
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -147/12 : paragraphs 21, 22
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -170/12 : paragraphs 19, 23, 24, 27

Operative part

  • Interprets : Regulation 44/2001 -A05PT3

Opinion

Information not available


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 28/01/2013

Date of the Opinion

Information not available

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

16/01/2014


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 147 from 25.05.2013, p.2

Judgment: OJ C 85 from 22.03.2014, p.10

Name of the parties

Kainz

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Idot, Laurence: Compétence en matière délictuelle et responsabilité des produits défectueux, Europe 2014 Mars Comm. nº 3 p.35-36 (FR)
  2. Dietze, Jan: EuGVVO: Zuständigkeit am Handlungsort in Produkt­haftungsfällen, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2014 p.234-235 (DE)
  3. Wagner, Eric: Der Ort des Inverkehrbringens ist für die Bestimmung des anwendbaren Rechts von zentraler Bedeutung, Betriebs-Berater 2014 p.661 (DE)
  4. De Clavière, Blandine: De la notion de fait dommageable en droit international privé européen et de la responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux..., Revue Lamy droit des affaires 2014 nº 92 p.60-63 (FR)
  5. Sujecki, Bartosz: Art. 5 Nr. 3 EuGVVO: In grenzüberschreitenden Produkthaftungsfällen ist Ort des ursächlichen Geschehens der Ort, an dem das Produkt hergestellt wurde - "Kainz", Europäisches Wirtschafts- & Steuerrecht - EWS 2014 p.94-95 (DE)
  6. Schmon, Christoph: "Handlungsort" in Produkthaftungssachen ist nur der Herstellungsort, Ecolex 2014 p.334-335 (DE)
  7. Wittwer, Alexander: Handlungs- und Erfolgsort bei internationaler Produkthaftung, European Law Reporter 2014 p.17-18 (DE)
  8. Strikwerda, L.: Nederlandse jurisprudentie ; Uitspraken in burgerlijke en strafzaken 2014 nº 38/39 p.4612-4614 (NL)
  9. Lheureux, Ellyn: L'arrêt Kainz: le lieu de fabrication du produit défectueux pointé du doigt, Droit de la consommation 2014 p.57-67 (FR)
  10. Laazouzi, Malik: Cour de justice, 4e ch., 16 janvier 2014, Andreas Kainz, aff. C-45/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:7, Jurisprudence de la CJUE 2014 (Ed. Bruylant - Bruxelles) 2014 p.804-806 (FR)
  11. Vanleenhove, Cedric ; De Bruyne, Jan: "Bike along, nothing to see here" -Hof van Justitie lokaliseert locus acti bij productaansprakelijkheid op de plaats waar het gebrekkige goed vervaardigd werd, Revue de droit commercial belge 2016 p.81-85 (NL)



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Oberster Gerichtshof - Austria

Subject-matter

  • area of freedom, security and justice
  • - Judicial cooperation in civil matters

Provisions of national law referred to

Information not available

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

  • Reference for a preliminary ruling

Formation of the Court

quatrième chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Safjan

Advocate General

Jääskinen

Language(s) of the Case

  • German

Language(s) of the Opinion

    Information not available