Yesterday (28 November 2024), the Court of Justice – asked by the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) to interpret Art 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – delivered its judgment on the case No C-526/23, VariusSystems digital solutions GmbH v GR.
In essence, the referring Court asked whether – for the purposes of determining the place of performance of a contract for the provision of services, i.e. a contract for the development and operation of a software – this place is the place in which the work of creating, designing and programming the software was carried out or the place where that customer accesses that same software, that is to say, consults and uses it.
In the judgment, the Court of Justice stated that the second indent of Art 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that “the ‘place of performance’ of a contract for the development and ongoing operation of software designed to meet the needs of a customer established in a Member State other than that in which the company that created, designed and programmed that software is established is the place where that customer accesses the software, that is to say, consults and uses it”. Moreover (par. 23) “where that software is intended to be used in different places, it is necessary to state that that place is located at the domicile of that customer and, in the case of a company, at its registered office”.
On jurisdiction in contractual matters, the readers of RDIPP may refer to:
Cristina Campiglio, 2023, No 4, 655 ff.;
Marco Argentini, 2021, No 3, 589 ff.;
Pietro Franzina, 2010, No 3, 655 ff.;
Eva de Götzen, 2010, No 2, 383 ff.;
Francesco Salerno, 2008, No 2, 381 ff.;
Angelica Bonfanti, 2008, No 2, 447 ff.;
Paolo Bertoli, 2002, No 3, 625 ff.
Moreover, see, in our Book Series:
Fausto Pocar, Ilaria Viarengo, Francesca C. Villata, Book No 76;
Stefania Bariatti, Ilaria Viarengo, Francesca C. Villata, Book No 81.