1)

Is the principle of cooperation enshrined in Article 10 EC to be interpreted as meaning that, in the circumstances stated in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-453/00 Kühne & Heitz, a national court is also obliged to review and reopen a final judicial decision if it should infringe Community law? Are there any other conditions applicable to the review and reopening of judicial decisions in contrast to administrative decisions?

2)

If the answer to the first question should be in the affirmative:

Is the period given under Paragraph 534 of the Zivilprozessordnung (Austrian Code of Civil Procedure) for the reopening of judicial decisions that are contrary to Community law compatible with the principle of full effectiveness of Community law?

3)

Furthermore, if the answer to the first question should be in the affirmative:

Does a lack of international (or local) jurisdiction that is not remedied by Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters constitute a breach of Community law that, under the principles concerned, can set aside the legal force of a judicial decision?

If the answer to the third question should be in the affirmative:

4)

Is a court of appeal obliged to review the issue of international (or local) jurisdiction under Regulation No 44/2001 if the jurisdiction decision of the court of first instance has become final but the decision on the merits of the case has not? If so, is that review to be conducted by the court of its own motion or only at the instigation of one of the parties to the proceedings?

1)

Does a misleading promise of financial benefit that helps to cause a contract to be concluded — that is to say, prepares the ground for a contract — demonstrate a sufficiently close connection with the intended conclusion of a consumer contract for jurisdiction over consumer contracts under Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001 to be afforded to consequent claims?

If the answer to the first question should be in the negative:

2)

Is jurisdiction over consumer contracts afforded to claims arising out of a pre-contractual obligation and does a misleading promise of financial benefit that helps to prepare the ground for a contract demonstrate a sufficiently close connection with the pre-contractual obligation thereby established for jurisdiction over consumer contracts also to be afforded thereto?

3)

Is jurisdiction over consumer contracts afforded only if the conditions stipulated by the undertaking for participation in the prize game are satisfied, even if those conditions are not to be given any consideration in the substantive claim under Paragraph 5j of the Konsumentenschutzgesetz (Austrian Consumer Protection Law)?

If the answers to the first and second questions should be in the negative:

4)

Is jurisdiction over consumer contracts afforded sui generis to a specific statutory form of contractual performance claim or sui generis to a constructive quasi-contractual performance claim which arises as a result of a promise of financial benefit made by an undertaking and the claiming of the financial benefit by the consumer?