Where an online platform operator allegedly charged all users established in a Member State excessive commissions on apps and digital in-app products sold on that platform, any court in that Member State with substantive jurisdiction over a representative action brought by a qualified entity on behalf of multiple unidentified but identifiable purchasers has international and territorial jurisdiction, on the basis of the place where the damage occurred, for all those users.

Under the second indent of Article 7(1)(b), a court of one Member State has jurisdiction over a compensation claim against an air carrier established in another Member State, brought by a company to which the passenger assigned the claim arising from the performance of the contract of carriage - provided that it is the court for the place where, under that contract, the services were provided or should have been provided.

1. Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019 on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction

must be interpreted as meaning that judicial authorisation, sought on behalf of a minor habitually resident in a Member State, to sell the shares owned by that minor in immovable property situated in another Member State comes within the scope of parental responsibility, within the meaning of Article 1(1)(b) of that regulation, in that that authorisation concerns protection measures, as referred to in Article 1(2)(e) of that regulation, with the result that, pursuant to Article 7(1) of that regulation, it is the courts of a Member State in which the minor is habitually resident at the time the court is seised which, in principle, have jurisdiction to grant that authorisation.

For a contract to develop and continuously operate software tailored to a customer established in a Member State other than the one where the company that created, designed and programmed the software is established, the 'place of performance' under the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) is the place where the customer accesses the software, that is to say, consults and uses it.

The 'place where the harmful event occurred' does not include the registered office of a parent company claiming damages for harm suffered solely by its subsidiaries because of anticompetitive conduct by a third party in breach of Article 101 TFEU, even if the parent company and those subsidiaries are said to form part of the same economic unit.

Where a vehicle allegedly fitted by its manufacturer in a first Member State with an unlawful defeat device is sold in a second Member State and delivered to the purchaser in a third Member State, the place where the damage occurred under Article 7(2) is the third Member State.

A contract to conclude a future franchise agreement, which includes a contractual penalty for non-performance and where breach of that preliminary contract is the basis of the claim, is not a contract for the 'provision of services'. Jurisdiction over a claim based on that obligation is determined, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a), by the place of performance of that obligation.

Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters

must be interpreted as meaning that a judgment that orders a debtor to make a penalty payment in the event of a future breach of a prohibitory order and that therefore does not definitively set the amount of that penalty payment does not constitute a judgment requiring the debtor to pay the creditor's claim, within the meaning of that provision, such that the creditor who requests a European Account Preservation Order is not exempt from the obligation to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the court before which an application for that order is brought that he or she is likely to succeed on the substance of his or her claim against the debtor.

Under Article 7(2), the court for the place where a company is established has jurisdiction over a collective action for damages in tort, delict or quasi-delict where that company's debts became irrecoverable because its grandparent company breached a duty of care towards that company's creditors, and the action is brought by the liquidator in the company's bankruptcy, under a statutory duty to wind up the estate, for the benefit of - but not on behalf of - the general body of creditors.

For a flight booked as a single confirmed journey but operated in two or more legs by different air carriers, where the compensation claim under Regulation No 261/2004 is based only on a delay on the first leg caused by late departure and is brought against the carrier operating that leg, the arrival place of that first leg is not a "place of performance" under the second indent of Article 7(1)(b).

Even where a person seeks rectification of information and removal of online content as well as compensation, that person may, before the courts of each Member State in which disparaging comments are or were accessible, claim compensation for the damage suffered in the Member State of the court seised, even though those courts do not have jurisdiction to rule on rectification and removal.

Within the market affected by collusive arrangements fixing and increasing the prices of goods, the place where the damage occurred under Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 is either the place where the undertaking claiming harm purchased the affected goods or, if it purchased them in several places, the place where its registered office is situated. Those courts therefore have international and territorial jurisdiction over an action for compensation for the damage caused by those arrangements contrary to Article 101 TFEU.

A person may sue in the courts of the place where his or her centre of interests is situated for all alleged damage caused by online content infringing personality rights only if that content contains objective and verifiable elements making it possible to identify that person, directly or indirectly, as an individual.

Article 13(2), read with Article 10, does not apply to a dispute between a business that has acquired a claim originally held by an injured party against a civil liability insurance undertaking and that undertaking. Jurisdiction over such a dispute may therefore, as appropriate, be founded on Article 7(2) or Article 7(5).

An undertaking that, in one Member State, adjusts losses in motor liability insurance in the name and on behalf of an insurer established in another Member State is a branch, agency or other establishment within the meaning of Article 7(5) of Regulation No 1215/2012 where it has the appearance of permanency, as an extension of the insurer, and has management and is materially equipped to negotiate business with third parties so that they do not have to deal directly with the insurer.

Purely financial loss that directly materialises in an investment account because investment decisions were taken on the basis of information from an international listed company that was easily accessible worldwide but inaccurate, incomplete or misleading does not, as the place where the damage occurred, give jurisdiction to the courts of the Member State where the bank or investment firm holding the account has its registered office - where that firm was not subject to statutory reporting obligations in that Member State.

3. Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning, first, that an action for the recovery of a fee arising from a contract for parking in one of the defined parking spaces situated on the public highway which are organised and managed by a company appointed for that purpose comes within the scope of 'matters relating to a contract' within the meaning of that provision and, second, that that contract constitutes a contract for the provision of services within the meaning of the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of that regulation.

An action of that kind may be brought under Article 21(1)(b)(i) before the court of the place where or from where the employee was required by the employment contract to discharge the essential part of his or her obligations towards the employer, without prejudice to point 5 of Article 7 of that regulation.

Article 7(2) applies to an action seeking an injunction against practices implemented in the parties' contractual relationship, where the claim is based on an alleged abuse of a dominant position contrary to competition law.

Where the designated use of co-owned immovable property laid down in a co-ownership agreement cannot be relied on erga omnes, an action by one co-owner to stop another co-owner from changing that use, arbitrarily and without the other co-owners' consent, is an action 'in matters relating to a contract' under Point 1(a) of Article 7. Subject to verification by the referring court, the place of performance of the obligation on which that action is based is where the property is situated.

Where a manufacturer in one Member State unlawfully fitted vehicles with software that manipulates exhaust gas emissions data before those vehicles were bought from a third party in another Member State, the damage occurs in that other Member State.

A dispute about a lawyer's obligation to pay annual professional fees to the bar association to which he or she belongs falls within Regulation No 1215/2012 only if, in requiring payment, the bar association is not acting in the exercise of public powers under the applicable national law, which is for the referring court to ascertain. An action by a bar association seeking payment of annual professional fees from one of its members is an action in "matters relating to a contract" within Article 7(1)(a) if those fees are consideration for services that the bar association provides to its members and those services are freely consented to by the member concerned, which is for the referring court to ascertain, even where the fees are essentially intended to finance services such as insurance services.

Where a court of a Member State hears a single action seeking both the flat-rate and standardised rights under Regulation No 261/2004 and compensation for further damage under the Montreal Convention, it must assess jurisdiction separately for each head of claim. Jurisdiction over the first head of claim must be assessed under Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, and jurisdiction over the second under Article 33 of the Convention.

In an action for damages caused by an infringement of Article 101 TFEU involving collusion on truck prices and gross price increases, "the place where the harmful event occurred" includes the place where the affected market is located - i.e. where market prices were distorted and where the victim claims to have suffered the loss - even where the claim is brought against a cartel participant with whom the victim had no contractual relations.

A dispute about a payment obligation arising from a decision of the general meeting of the owners of property in a building falls within "matters relating to a contract" under Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 1215/2012 where that body has no legal personality, was specifically established by law to exercise certain rights, and the decision was taken by a majority but binds all members.

A court does not have jurisdiction under Article 7(5) to hear a claim for compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 against an airline established in another Member State merely because the airline has a branch within that court's territorial jurisdiction, if that branch was not involved in the legal relationship between the airline and the passenger concerned.

In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, an actio pauliana , whereby the person entitled to a debt arising under a contract requests that an act by which his debtor has transferred an asset to a third party and which is allegedly detrimental to his rights be declared ineffective in relation to the creditor, is covered by the rule of international jurisdiction provided for in Article 7(1)(a) 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.

For a claim for compensation for terminating a commercial concession agreement between companies established and operating in different Member States, concerning distribution in a third State where neither company has a branch or establishment, jurisdiction under Article 7(1) lies with the courts of the Member State where the main supply of services was to be provided, as shown first by the contract and, failing that, by its actual performance. If that place still cannot be identified, jurisdiction lies with the courts of the Member State where the agent is domiciled.

A legal person alleging that incorrect information published about it online, and a failure to remove comments about it, infringed its personality rights may bring an action for rectification, removal and compensation for all damage before the courts of the Member State where its centre of interests is located. Where that legal person carries out the main part of its activities in a Member State other than the one where its registered office is located, it may sue in that other Member State as the place where the damage occurred.

A person alleging that incorrect information published about him online, and a failure to remove comments about him, infringed his personality rights cannot bring an action for rectification and removal before the courts of each Member State in which the online information is or was accessible.

A recourse claim between jointly and severally liable debtors under a credit agreement is a matter relating to a contract for the purposes of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012.

A credit agreement between a credit institution and two jointly and severally liable debtors is a contract for the provision of services for the purposes of the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012.

Where a credit institution grants a loan to two jointly and severally liable debtors, the "place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided" in the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 is, unless otherwise agreed, the place of that institution's registered office. The same place also determines territorial jurisdiction for an action for recourse between those debtors.

An action to avoid a gift of immovable property because the donor lacked capacity to contract falls not under the exclusive jurisdiction in Article 24(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, but under the special jurisdiction in Article 7(1)(a). An action to remove from the land register notices evidencing the donee's right of ownership falls under the exclusive jurisdiction in Article 24(1).