5.3.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/15

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Latvijas Republikas Augstâkâs tiesas Senâts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 29 December 2010 — Trade Agency Limited v Seramico Investments Limited

(Case C-619/10)

2011/C 72/25

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Latvijas Republikas Augstâkâs tiesas Senâts

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Trade Agency Limited

Defendant: Seramico Investments Limited

Questions referred

Where a decision of a foreign court is accompanied by the certificate provided for in Article 54 of Regulation No 44/2001 (1), but the defendant nevertheless objects on the ground that he was not served with notice of the action brought in the Member State of origin, is a court in the Member State where enforcement is sought competent, when considering a ground for withholding recognition provided for in Article 34(2) of Regulation No 44/2001, to examine for itself the conformity with the evidence of the information contained in the certificate? Is such wide jurisdiction on the part of a court in the Member State in which enforcement is sought compatible with the principle of mutual trust in the administration of justice set out in recitals 16 and 17 to Regulation No 44/2001?

Is a decision given in default of appearance, which disposes of the substance of a dispute without examining either the subject-matter of the claim or the grounds on which it is based and sets out no reasoning as to the substantive basis of the claim, compatible with Article 47 of the Charter and does it not infringe the defendant’s right to a fair hearing, laid down by the provision?

(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).