EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017CN0337
Case C-337/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie (Poland) lodged on 7 June 2017 — Feniks Sp. z o.o. v Azteca Products & Services SL
Case C-337/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie (Poland) lodged on 7 June 2017 — Feniks Sp. z o.o. v Azteca Products & Services SL
Case C-337/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie (Poland) lodged on 7 June 2017 — Feniks Sp. z o.o. v Azteca Products & Services SL
IO C 300, 11.9.2017, p. 14–14
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 07/06/2017
- Date lodged:
- 07/06/2017
- Author:
- An Chúirt Bhreithiúnais
- Form:
- Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
- Authentic language:
- Polainnis
- Type of procedure:
- Tarchur le haghaidh réamhrialú
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Submits a preliminary question about 32012R1215 airteagal 7 mír 1 pointe (a)
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
11.9.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 300/14 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie (Poland) lodged on 7 June 2017 — Feniks Sp. z o.o. v Azteca Products & Services SL
(Case C-337/17)
(2017/C 300/17)
Language of the case: Polish
Referring court
Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Feniks Sp. z o.o., established in Szczecin
Defendant: Azteca Products & Services SL, established in Alcora
Questions referred
|
1. |
Does a case brought against a buyer established in one Member State, seeking a declaration that a contract for the sale of immovable property situated in the territory of another Member State, which was concluded and performed in its entirety in the territory of another Member State, is ineffective on the ground of detriment to the seller’s creditors, constitute a ‘matter relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) 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? |
|
2. |
Must the above question be answered applying the principle of acte éclairé with reference to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Handte v Traitements mécano-chimiques des surfaces SA, C-26/91, EU:C:1992:268, despite the fact that it concerned the liability for defects in goods of a manufacturer who could not foresee to whom the goods would subsequently be sold, and thus who would be able to bring claims against him, whereas the present action against a buyer ‘seeking a declaration that a contract for the sale of immovable property is ineffective’ on the ground of detriment to the seller’s creditors, requires, in order to be effective, knowledge on the part of the buyer that the legal act (contract of sale) was done with detriment to creditors, and thus the buyer must anticipate that such an action may be brought by a personal creditor of the seller? |
