Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62014CN0559

    Case C-559/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 5 December 2014  — Rūdolfs Meroni v Recoletos Limited

    OJ C 89, 16.3.2015, p. 2–2 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    16.3.2015   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 89/2

    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 5 December 2014 — Rūdolfs Meroni v Recoletos Limited

    (Case C-559/14)

    (2015/C 089/02)

    Language of the case: Latvian

    Referring court

    Augstākā tiesa

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Rūdolfs Meroni

    Defendant: Recoletos Limited

    Questions referred

    1.

    Must Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Regulation be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of proceedings for the recognition of a foreign judgment, infringement of the rights of persons who are not parties to the main proceedings may constitute grounds for applying the public policy clause contained in Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Regulation and for refusing to recognise the foreign judgment in so far as it affects persons who are not parties to the main proceedings?

    2.

    If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 47 of the Charter be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the right to a fair trial set out therein allows proceedings for the adoption of provisional protective measures to limit the economic rights of a person who has not been a party to the proceedings, if provision is made to the effect that any person who is affected by the decision on the provisional protective measures is to have the right at any time to request the court to vary or discharge the judgment, in a situation in which it is left to the applicants to notify the decision to the persons concerned?
    Top