This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019CN0433
Case C-433/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 6 June 2019 — Ellmes Property Services Limited v SP
Case C-433/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 6 June 2019 — Ellmes Property Services Limited v SP
Case C-433/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 6 June 2019 — Ellmes Property Services Limited v SP
OJ C 357, 21.10.2019, pp. 4–5
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
21.10.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 357/4 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 6 June 2019 — Ellmes Property Services Limited v SP
(Case C-433/19)
(2019/C 357/07)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Oberster Gerichtshof
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Ellmes Property Services Limited
Defendant: SP
Questions referred
|
1. |
Is the first alternative in the first subparagraph of Article 24(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)(‘Brussels Ia Regulation’) to be interpreted as meaning that actions brought by a co-owner seeking to prohibit another co-owner from carrying out changes to his property subject to co-ownership, in particular to its designated use, arbitrarily and without the consent of the other co-owners, concern the assertion of a right in rem? |
|
2. |
If the first question should be answered in the negative: Is Article 7(1)(a) of the Brussels Ia Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that the actions referred to in paragraph 1 concern contractual obligations to be performed at the location of the property? |