This is the question that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) addressed yesterday in Austro-Mechana v Amazon, C-572/14 [thanks to EU law enthusiast and scholar Steve Peers for the heads up].
Readers may remember that a few weeks ago this very blog reported [here] on the Opinion of Advocate General (AG) Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe in this case. In his analysis the AG held the view that, for the sake of establishing jurisdiction within the Brussels I Regulation Recast, failure to pay the fair compensation should be regarded as tort, delict or quasi-delict.
|Someone who has no collecting issues|
Both the Vienna Commercial Court and the Vienna Higher Regional Court sided with Amazon and dismissed Austro-Mechana's action.
The Austrian Supreme Court was not so sure that the correct interpretation of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation Recast is that obvious, so it decided to stay the proceedings and seek guidance from the CJEU.
|Intentions alone or also harm?|
|Who wants to pay |