This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CJ0157
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 26 September 2013.#Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH v SC Laminorul SA.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof.#Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 34(3) and (4) — Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State — Situation whereby that judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in that Member State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties.#Case C‑157/12.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 26 September 2013.
Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH v SC Laminorul SA.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof.
Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 34(3) and (4) — Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State — Situation whereby that judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in that Member State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties.
Case C‑157/12.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 26 September 2013.
Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH v SC Laminorul SA.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof.
Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 34(3) and (4) — Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State — Situation whereby that judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in that Member State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties.
Case C‑157/12.
Court reports – general
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2013:597
- Date of document:
- 26/09/2013
- Date lodged:
- 30/03/2012
- Author:
- Court of Justice
- Country or organisation from which the request originates:
- Germany
- Form:
- Judgment
- Authentic language:
- German
- Type of procedure:
- Reference for a preliminary ruling
- Observations:
- EU Member States, Italy, Romania, European Commission, Germany, EU institutions and bodies, Spain
- Judge-Rapporteur:
- Safjan
- Advocate General:
- Wahl
- National court:
-
*A9* Bundesgerichtshof, Beschluss vom 08/03/2012 (IX ZB 144/10)
- Entscheidungen zum Wirtschaftsrecht 2012 p.455-456
- Monatsschrift für deutsches Recht 2012 p.671-672
- Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts 2012 nº3 p.VII
- Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 2012 p.407-409
- Wertpapier-Mitteilungen 2012 p.662-664
- Die deutsche Rechtsprechung auf dem Gebiete des Internationalen Privatrechts im Jahre 2012 (Ed. Mohr Siebeck - Tübingen) 2014 p.590-594
- Vogl, Thorsten: Entscheidungen zum Wirtschaftsrecht 2012 p.455-456
*I1* Bundesgerichtshof, Beschluss vom 07/11/2013 (IX ZB 144/10)
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Interprets 32001R0044 A34PT4
- Instruments cited in case law:
-
- 32001R0044-A32: N 4 29
- 32001R0044-A33P1: N 5
- 32001R0044-A34: N 27
- 32001R0044-A34PT3: N 6
- 32001R0044-A34PT4: N 1 6 20 - 22 29 30 36 40
- 32001R0044-A35: N 27
- 32001R0044-A38P1: N 7 26
- 32001R0044-A41: N 8 26
- 32001R0044-A43: N 27
- 32001R0044-A43P1: N 9
- 32001R0044-A43P3: N 9
- 32001R0044-A45: N 10 27
- 32001R0044-A45P2: N 37
- 32001R0044-A46P1: N 11 34
- 32001R0044-C15: N 3 24
- 32001R0044-C16: N 3 32
- 32001R0044-C17: N 3 25 32
- 32001R0044-C2: N 3
- 32001R0044: N 31 38
- 62007CJ0420: N 28
- 62010CJ0139: N 28
- 62010CJ0619: N 22 26 27 32
- 62012CC0157: N 23 29 38
- Notes relating to the decision:
-
- 9. Katiforis M., Nikolaos: The implementation of Article 34(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 in irreconcilable judgments issued by courts of the same Member State (in the context of the judment of the European Court of Justice of 26th September 2013, Salzgitter/Laminorul, C-157/2012), Festschrift für Professor Nikolaos K. Klamaris (Sakkoulas Publications, Athens - Thessaloniki) 2016 p.385-391 (EN)
- 3. Idot, Laurence: Décisions contraires rendues dans un même État membre. L'article 34, point 4 du règlement (CE) n° 44/2001, qui prévoit la non reconnaissance d'une décision inconciliable ne s'applique pas à des décisions rendues dans le même État membre , Europe 2013 Novembre Comm. nº 11 p.52-53 (FR)
- 4. Anthimos, Apostolos: Anagnorisi apofaseos ekdotheisas entos allou kratous melous., Episkopisi Emporikou Dikaiou 2013 p.571-573 (EL)
- 7. Katiforis M., Nikolaos: I efarmogi tou arthrou 34 sim. 4 Kanonismou (EK) 44/2001 stis asymvivastes apofaseis tou idiou kratous melous, Elliniki Dikaiosyni 2015 p.658-663 (EL)
- 1. Berlin, Dominique: Libre circulation des jugements et respect des compétences étatiques, La Semaine Juridique - édition générale 2013 nº 42 p.1910 (FR)
- 5. Gaudemet-Tallon, Hélène: Du 26 septembre 2013 - Cour de justice de l'Union européenne - Aff. C-157/12, Revue critique de droit international privé 2014 nº 1 p.178-182 (FR)
- 6. Valtoudis, Anastasios: H ennoia ton asymvivaston dikastikon apofaseon ton arthron 34 ar. 3 kai 45 ed. a' Kanonismou 44/2001 (me aformi tin apofasi tou DEE, 26.9.2013, Salzgitter/Laminorul, C-157/12) , Epitheorisi Politikis Dikonomias 2014 p.289-297 (EL)
- 2. Mäsch, Gerald: Keine Anwendbarkeit von Artikel 34 Nummer 4 auf unvereinbare Entscheidungen aus demselben Mitgliedstaat , Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2013 p.905-906 (DE)
- 8. Valtoudis, Anastasios: I ennoia ton asymvivaston dikastikon apofaseon ton arthron 34 ar. 3 kai 45 ed. a΄ Kanonismou 44/2001, Timitikos Tomos Filippou Dori - I (Ed. Ant. N. Sakkoulas Publishers, Athens - Greece) 2015 p. 71-84 (EL)
- Subject matter:
- Case law directory code:
-
Case C‑157/12
Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH
v
SC Laminorul SA
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof)
‛Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 34(3) and (4) — Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State — Situation whereby that judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in that Member State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties’
Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 26 September 2013
Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Recognition and enforcement of judgments — Grounds for refusing enforcement — Judgment irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another Member State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties — Concept — Judgments given by courts of the same Member State — Not included
(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Arts 34(4) and 45(2))
Article 34(4) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not covering irreconcilable judgments given by courts of the same Member State.
In principle, the sound operation of the rules on recognition and enforcement of judgments given in another Member State, which are based on mutual trust, implies that the courts of the Member State of origin retain jurisdiction to assess, in the context of the legal remedies established by the legal system of that Member State, the lawfulness of the judgment to be enforced, to the exclusion, in principle, of the court of the Member State in which enforcement is sought, and that the final outcome of the assessment of the lawfulness of that judgment will not be called into question.
The interpretation of Article 34(4) of Regulation No 44/2001 according to which it also covers conflicts between two judgments given in one Member State is inconsistent with the principle of mutual trust, as laid down by Regulation No 44/2001. Such an interpretation would allow the court in the Member State in which recognition is sought to substitute its own assessment of that of the court in the Member Sate of origin.
Once the judgment has become final at the end of the proceedings in the Member State of origin, the non-enforcement of that judgment on the ground that it is irreconcilable with a judgment given in the same Member State amounts to reviewing the judgment sought to be enforced as to its substance which is, however, expressly excluded by Article 45(2) of Regulation No 44/2001.
(see paras 31, 33, 36, 37, 40, operative part)
Case C‑157/12
Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH
v
SC Laminorul SA
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof)
‛Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 34(3) and (4) — Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State — Situation whereby that judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in that Member State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties’
Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 26 September 2013
Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Recognition and enforcement of judgments — Grounds for refusing enforcement — Judgment irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another Member State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties — Concept — Judgments given by courts of the same Member State — Not included
(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Arts 34(4) and 45(2))
Article 34(4) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not covering irreconcilable judgments given by courts of the same Member State.
In principle, the sound operation of the rules on recognition and enforcement of judgments given in another Member State, which are based on mutual trust, implies that the courts of the Member State of origin retain jurisdiction to assess, in the context of the legal remedies established by the legal system of that Member State, the lawfulness of the judgment to be enforced, to the exclusion, in principle, of the court of the Member State in which enforcement is sought, and that the final outcome of the assessment of the lawfulness of that judgment will not be called into question.
The interpretation of Article 34(4) of Regulation No 44/2001 according to which it also covers conflicts between two judgments given in one Member State is inconsistent with the principle of mutual trust, as laid down by Regulation No 44/2001. Such an interpretation would allow the court in the Member State in which recognition is sought to substitute its own assessment of that of the court in the Member Sate of origin.
Once the judgment has become final at the end of the proceedings in the Member State of origin, the non-enforcement of that judgment on the ground that it is irreconcilable with a judgment given in the same Member State amounts to reviewing the judgment sought to be enforced as to its substance which is, however, expressly excluded by Article 45(2) of Regulation No 44/2001.
(see paras 31, 33, 36, 37, 40, operative part)
