Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Hi Hotel HCF SARL v Uwe Spoering (C-387/12)
Judgment
Consideration of the question referred
Substance
24

Hi Hotel HCF SARL v Uwe Spoering (C-387/12)

Judgment of 3 Apr 2014law://eu/cjeu/2012/c-387-12/para_24@2026-11-11

24It should be recalled at the outset that the provisions of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted independently, by reference to its scheme and purpose (Case C‑228/11 Melzer EU:C:2013:305, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Fourth Chamber
Case: C-387/12 · ECLI:EU:C:2014:215
Decided: 3 Apr 2014
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)
Applicant: Hi Hotel HCF SARL
Defendant: Uwe Spoering
Rapporteur: M. Safjan
Advocate General: N. Jääskinen
Bench: 5 judges
L. Bay Larsen, M. Safjan, C.G. Fernlund, J. Malenovský, A. Prechal
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62012CJ0387

Topics

Judicial cooperation in civil matters

History · 1 version

3 Apr 2014Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
Cited by 5: Harald Kolassa v Barclays Bank plc (C-375/13); Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) Hydrogen Peroxide SA v Evonik Degussa GmbH and Others (C-352/13); AB ‘flyLAL-Lithunian Airlines’ v Starptautiskā lidosta ‘Rīga’ VAS and ‘Air Baltic Corporation’ AS (C-27/17); flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines AS v Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga VAS and Air Baltic Corporation AS (C-302/13)2 provisions; A v B and Others (C-112/13)2 provisions
Cites 6: Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters; Directive 2001/29/EC; Ministero dello Sviluppo economico and Autorità per la vigilanza sui contratti pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture v SOA Nazionale Costruttori — Organismo di Attestazione SpA (C-327/12); Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG (C-170/12); Melzer v MF Global UK Ltd (C-228/11); Folien Fischer AG and Fofitec AG v Ritrama SpA (C-133/11)