EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011CA0456
Case C-456/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bremen — Germany) — Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG, ERGO Versicherung AG, Versicherungskammer Bayern-Versicherungsanstalt des öffentlichen Rechts, Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs-AG, Krones AG v Samskip GmbH (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Articles 32 and 33 — Recognition of judgments — Concept of ‘judgment’ — Effects of a judgment on international jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause)
Case C-456/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bremen — Germany) — Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG, ERGO Versicherung AG, Versicherungskammer Bayern-Versicherungsanstalt des öffentlichen Rechts, Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs-AG, Krones AG v Samskip GmbH (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Articles 32 and 33 — Recognition of judgments — Concept of ‘judgment’ — Effects of a judgment on international jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause)
Case C-456/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bremen — Germany) — Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG, ERGO Versicherung AG, Versicherungskammer Bayern-Versicherungsanstalt des öffentlichen Rechts, Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs-AG, Krones AG v Samskip GmbH (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Articles 32 and 33 — Recognition of judgments — Concept of ‘judgment’ — Effects of a judgment on international jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause)
IO C 9, 12.1.2013, p. 19–20
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
12.1.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 9/19 |
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bremen — Germany) — Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG, ERGO Versicherung AG, Versicherungskammer Bayern-Versicherungsanstalt des öffentlichen Rechts, Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs-AG, Krones AG v Samskip GmbH
(Case C-456/11) (1)
(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Articles 32 and 33 - Recognition of judgments - Concept of ‘judgment’ - Effects of a judgment on international jurisdiction - Jurisdiction clause)
2013/C 9/30
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Landgericht Bremen
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG, ERGO Versicherung AG, Versicherungskammer Bayern-Versicherungsanstalt des öffentlichen Rechts, Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs-AG, Krones AG
Defendant: Samskip GmbH
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Bremen — Interpretation of Articles 31 and 32 of 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) — Recognition of judgments issued in a Member State — Purely procedural judgment (‘Prozeßurteil’) — Judgment concerning the interpretation of a clause allocating jurisdiction, by which the national court declares that it lacks jurisdiction in holding that the court of a third State has jurisdiction — Extent of recognition
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Article 32 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that it also covers a judgment by which the court of a Member State declines jurisdiction on the basis of a jurisdiction clause, irrespective of how that judgment is categorised under the law of another Member State. |
|
2. |
Articles 32 and 33 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that the court before which recognition is sought of a judgment by which a court of another Member State has declined jurisdiction on the basis of a jurisdiction clause is bound by the finding — made in the grounds of a judgment, which has since become final, declaring the action inadmissible — regarding the validity of that clause. |