Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62016CN0249

Case C-249/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 2 May 2016 — Saale Kareda v Stefan Benkö

OJ C 305, 22.8.2016, p. 12–12 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
02/05/2016
Date lodged:
02/05/2016
Author:
Court of Justice
Form:
Judicial information
Authentic language:
German
Type of procedure:
Reference for a preliminary ruling
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Case affecting:
  • Submits a preliminary question about 32012R1215 article 7 point 1
  • Submits a preliminary question about 32012R1215 article 7 point 1 point (a)
  • Submits a preliminary question about 32012R1215 article 7 point 1 point (b) TIRE 2
  • Submits a preliminary question about 32012R1215 article 7 point 1 point (c)
Link

22.8.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 2 May 2016 — Saale Kareda v Stefan Benkö

(Case C-249/16)

(2016/C 305/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Saale Kareda

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Stefan Benkö

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 7(1) 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 (1) (‘Regulation No 1215/2012’) be interpreted as meaning that, where a debtor under a (joint) credit agreement with a bank has, on his own, made the repayments due under that credit agreement, a reimbursement claim (compensation/recourse claim) brought by that debtor against the other debtor under that credit agreement constitutes a derived (secondary) contractual claim arising from that credit agreement?

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Is the place of performance of a debtor’s reimbursement claim (compensation/recourse claim) against the other debtor arising out of the underlying credit agreement to be determined

a.

in accordance with the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (‘provision of services’) or

b.

in accordance with Article 7(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 7(1)(a), of Regulation No 1215/2012 on the basis of the lex causae?

3.

If Question 2.a is answered in the affirmative:

Is the service characterising the credit agreement the granting of the loans by the bank, and is, therefore, the place of performance of that service determined in accordance with the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 by the registered office of the bank, if the loans were provided exclusively at that place?

4.

If Question 2.b is answered in the affirmative:

For the purpose of determining the place of performance for the non-performed contractual obligation in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 1215/2012, is the decisive date

a.

the date on which the two debtors took out the loans (March 2007) or

b.

the dates on which the loan debtor entitled to recourse made to the bank the payments from which he derives the recourse claim (June 2012 to June 2014)?

(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

Top