VGG AG (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Requirement to present the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings - Order) French Text [2024] EUECJ C-190/23_CO (17 May 2024)

VGG AG (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Requirement to present the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings - Order) French Text [2024] EUECJ C-190/23_CO (17 May 2024)

The Court held that the preliminary reference was manifestly inadmissible regarding all defendants except VGG AG and VGG Entertainment Inc. due to lack of factual context. For these two, the Court found that their activities did not fall within the scope of EU law or the EU-Switzerland Agreement, making the questions on free movement of services and the Charter manifestly inadmissible or outside the Court's jurisdiction.

Citation
[2024] EUECJ C-190/23_CO
Parties
Defendant: VGG AG; Defendant: VGG Entertainment Inc.; Defendant: Dan A.; Defendant: M. Trade SAS; Defendant: D. SASU; Defendant: T. Logistique SAS; Defendant: Arthur C.; Defendant: S. SAS; Defendant: Grégory B.; Defendant: David C.; Defendant: David M.; Defendant: IE; Defendant: CID; Prosecutor: Procureur de la République de Paris; Civil Party: Association Plus De Sons; Civil Party: Prodiss SARL; Civil Party: Théâtre Musical de Paris - Châtelet; Civil Party: Union européenne des Sociétés de Football Association (UEFA); Civil Party: EURO 2016 SAS; Civil Party: Première Ligue; Civil Party: Union fédérale des consommateurs Que Choisir; Civil Party: Corida SA; Civil Party: Radical Production SAS; Civil Party: Garaca (Rock en Seine) SAS; Civil Party: Décibels Productions SAS; Civil Party: TS 3 SAS; Civil Party: J. H. D Production Alias; Civil Party: Foot Unis
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
17 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Reference (article 267 Tfeu) / Order on Admissibility and Jurisdiction
Outcome
Preliminary reference manifestly inadmissible in part; manifest lack of jurisdiction in part.
Legal Topics
Preliminary Reference, Admissibility, Jurisdiction, Free Movement of Services, Ticket Resale, Proportionality of Penalties, Legal Certainty, Application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
European Union Law Criminal Law Consumer Protection Preliminary Reference Admissibility Jurisdiction Free Movement of Services Ticket Resale +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VGG AG

Defendant

VGG Entertainment Inc.

Defendant

Dan A.

Defendant

M. Trade SAS

Defendant

D. SASU

Defendant

T. Logistique SAS

Defendant

Arthur C.

Defendant

S. SAS

Defendant

Grégory B.

Defendant

David C.

Defendant

David M.

Defendant

IE

Defendant

CID

Defendant

Procureur de la République de Paris

Prosecutor

Association Plus De Sons

Civil Party

Prodiss SARL

Civil Party

Théâtre Musical de Paris - Châtelet

Civil Party

Union européenne des Sociétés de Football Association (UEFA)

Civil Party

EURO 2016 SAS

Civil Party

Première Ligue

Civil Party

Union fédérale des consommateurs Que Choisir

Civil Party

Corida SA

Civil Party

Radical Production SAS

Civil Party

Garaca (Rock en Seine) SAS

Civil Party

Décibels Productions SAS

Civil Party

TS 3 SAS

Civil Party

J. H. D Production Alias

Civil Party

Foot Unis

Civil Party

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Reference (article 267 Tfeu) / Order on Admissibility and Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Justice of the European Union has jurisdiction to answer questions referred regarding the compatibility of French ticket resale laws with EU law and the Charter, in the context of proceedings against Swiss and US companies.
  2. 2 Whether the preliminary reference is admissible regarding all defendants.
  3. 3 Whether the activities of VGG AG and VGG Entertainment Inc. fall within the scope of EU law or the EU-Switzerland Agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the preliminary reference was manifestly inadmissible regarding all defendants except VGG AG and VGG Entertainment Inc. due to lack of factual context. For these two, the Court found that their activities did not fall within the scope of EU law or the EU-Switzerland Agreement, making the questions on free movement of services and the Charter manifestly inadmissible or outside the Court's jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Preliminary reference manifestly inadmissible in part; manifest lack of jurisdiction in part.

Orders

  • The preliminary reference is manifestly inadmissible regarding all defendants except VGG AG and VGG Entertainment Inc.
  • The first, second, seventh, and eighth questions are manifestly inadmissible.