砰的一声,柴油机熄火了!对C‑343/19 Verein fur Konsumenteninformation诉大众汽车公司案的案例评议

J. Lee
{"title":"砰的一声,柴油机熄火了!对C‑343/19 Verein fur Konsumenteninformation诉大众汽车公司案的案例评议","authors":"J. Lee","doi":"10.14296/islr.v8i2.5332","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Case C 343/19 Verein fur Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG   is an EU jurisdictional dispute about an Austrian consumer claim concerning vehicles that were defectively manufactured by a German company. The resulting decision by the Court of the Justice of the European Union (CJEU) granted jurisdiction for Austrian courts to hear the case. This case comment will proceed in five steps. Firstly, it provides a summary of the facts. Secondly, it lays down the jurisdictional rules per Brussels I Regulation 2012 (Brussels I),  and the precedent surrounding Article 7(2) Brussels I on alternative jurisdiction for torts. Thirdly, it agrees with the CJEU that the place of final purchase before the scandal (Austria) is the place of initial damage. Fourth, it criticises the CJEU’s characterisation of the case as one involving material damage rather than pure financial loss, while using reasoning from pure financial loss case to justify granting alternative jurisdiction in the present dispute. Finally, this comment laments that the CJEU failed to (1) clarify alternative jurisdiction rules for when the place of purchase and place of marketing are different, and (2) flesh out substantive criteria for what ‘other specific circumstances’ are required in order to grant Article 7(2) alternative jurisdiction.","PeriodicalId":122771,"journal":{"name":"IALS Student Law Review","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pop goes the diesel! A Case comment on Case C‑343/19 Verein fur Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG\",\"authors\":\"J. Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.14296/islr.v8i2.5332\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Case C 343/19 Verein fur Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG   is an EU jurisdictional dispute about an Austrian consumer claim concerning vehicles that were defectively manufactured by a German company. The resulting decision by the Court of the Justice of the European Union (CJEU) granted jurisdiction for Austrian courts to hear the case. This case comment will proceed in five steps. Firstly, it provides a summary of the facts. Secondly, it lays down the jurisdictional rules per Brussels I Regulation 2012 (Brussels I),  and the precedent surrounding Article 7(2) Brussels I on alternative jurisdiction for torts. Thirdly, it agrees with the CJEU that the place of final purchase before the scandal (Austria) is the place of initial damage. Fourth, it criticises the CJEU’s characterisation of the case as one involving material damage rather than pure financial loss, while using reasoning from pure financial loss case to justify granting alternative jurisdiction in the present dispute. Finally, this comment laments that the CJEU failed to (1) clarify alternative jurisdiction rules for when the place of purchase and place of marketing are different, and (2) flesh out substantive criteria for what ‘other specific circumstances’ are required in order to grant Article 7(2) alternative jurisdiction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":122771,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IALS Student Law Review\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IALS Student Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14296/islr.v8i2.5332\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IALS Student Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14296/islr.v8i2.5332","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

C 343/19 Verein fur Konsumenteninformation诉大众汽车(Volkswagen AG)案是一起欧盟司法纠纷,涉及一名奥地利消费者对一家德国公司生产的汽车存在缺陷的索赔。欧洲联盟法院(欧洲法院)最终作出的决定授予奥地利法院审理此案的管辖权。这个案例注释将分五个步骤进行。首先,它对事实进行了总结。其次,它根据2012年布鲁塞尔I条例(布鲁塞尔I)制定了管辖权规则,以及围绕布鲁塞尔I第7(2)条关于侵权替代管辖权的先例。第三,与欧洲法院关于丑闻发生前的最终购买地(奥地利)为初始损害发生地的观点一致。第四,它批评了欧洲法院将此案定性为涉及物质损害而非纯粹经济损失的案件,同时利用纯粹经济损失案件的推理来证明在当前争端中给予替代管辖权是合理的。最后,该评论遗憾地指出,欧洲法院未能(1)澄清当采购地和销售地不同时的替代管辖权规则,以及(2)为授予第7(2)条替代管辖权所需的“其他特定情况”充实实质性标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pop goes the diesel! A Case comment on Case C‑343/19 Verein fur Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG
Case C 343/19 Verein fur Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG   is an EU jurisdictional dispute about an Austrian consumer claim concerning vehicles that were defectively manufactured by a German company. The resulting decision by the Court of the Justice of the European Union (CJEU) granted jurisdiction for Austrian courts to hear the case. This case comment will proceed in five steps. Firstly, it provides a summary of the facts. Secondly, it lays down the jurisdictional rules per Brussels I Regulation 2012 (Brussels I),  and the precedent surrounding Article 7(2) Brussels I on alternative jurisdiction for torts. Thirdly, it agrees with the CJEU that the place of final purchase before the scandal (Austria) is the place of initial damage. Fourth, it criticises the CJEU’s characterisation of the case as one involving material damage rather than pure financial loss, while using reasoning from pure financial loss case to justify granting alternative jurisdiction in the present dispute. Finally, this comment laments that the CJEU failed to (1) clarify alternative jurisdiction rules for when the place of purchase and place of marketing are different, and (2) flesh out substantive criteria for what ‘other specific circumstances’ are required in order to grant Article 7(2) alternative jurisdiction.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信