Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018CN0433

Case C-433/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 2 July 2018 — ML v OÜ Aktiva Finants

OJ C 352, 1.10.2018, p. 18–18 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

1.10.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/18


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 2 July 2018 — ML v OÜ Aktiva Finants

(Case C-433/18)

(2018/C 352/23)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ML

Defendant: OÜ Aktiva Finants

Questions referred

1.

Is the procedure for granting leave for further consideration which is part of the national system of appeals compatible with the effective rights of appeal that are guaranteed for both parties in Article 43(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 (1) where an appeal is lodged against the decision of a district court which relates to the recognition or enforcement of a judgment under Regulation No 44/2001?

2.

In the procedure for granting leave for further consideration, are the requirements in relation to a procedure in contradictory matters within the meaning of Article 43(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 satisfied if the respondent is not heard in relation to the appeal before the decision on leave is taken? Are they satisfied if the respondent is heard before the decision on leave for further consideration is taken?

3.

Does the fact that the appellant may be not only the party who has applied for enforcement and whose application has been refused, but also the party against whom enforcement has been applied for when that application has been allowed, have any significance for the above interpretation?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


Top