EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/224/21
Case C-103/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Reisch Montage AG v Kiesel Baumaschinen Handels GmbH (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 6(1) — Cases where there is more than one defendant — Action brought in a Member State against a person domiciled in that State who is the subject of bankruptcy proceedings and a co-defendant domiciled in another Member State — Inadmissibility of the action against the person who is the subject of bankruptcy proceedings — Jurisdiction of the court seised in relation to the co-defendant)
Case C-103/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Reisch Montage AG v Kiesel Baumaschinen Handels GmbH (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 6(1) — Cases where there is more than one defendant — Action brought in a Member State against a person domiciled in that State who is the subject of bankruptcy proceedings and a co-defendant domiciled in another Member State — Inadmissibility of the action against the person who is the subject of bankruptcy proceedings — Jurisdiction of the court seised in relation to the co-defendant)
Case C-103/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Reisch Montage AG v Kiesel Baumaschinen Handels GmbH (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 6(1) — Cases where there is more than one defendant — Action brought in a Member State against a person domiciled in that State who is the subject of bankruptcy proceedings and a co-defendant domiciled in another Member State — Inadmissibility of the action against the person who is the subject of bankruptcy proceedings — Jurisdiction of the court seised in relation to the co-defendant)
SL C 224, 16.9.2006, p. 12–12
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
16.9.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 224/12 |
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Reisch Montage AG v Kiesel Baumaschinen Handels GmbH
(Case C-103/05) (1)
(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 6(1) - Cases where there is more than one defendant - Action brought in a Member State against a person domiciled in that State who is the subject of bankruptcy proceedings and a co-defendant domiciled in another Member State - Inadmissibility of the action against the person who is the subject of bankruptcy proceedings - Jurisdiction of the court seised in relation to the co-defendant)
(2006/C 224/21)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Oberster Gerichtshof
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Reisch Montage AG
Defendant: Kiesel Baumaschinen Handels GmbH
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 6(1) 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) — Multiple defendants — Action brought in a Contracting State against a first defendant domiciled in that State and a co-defendant domiciled in another Contracting State — Inadmissibility of the action against that first defendant, the subject of bankruptcy proceedings — Jurisdiction of the court seised in relation to the co-defendant
Operative part of the judgment
Article 6(1) 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, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, that provision may be relied on in the context of an action brought in a Member State against a defendant domiciled in that State and a co-defendant domiciled in another Member State even when that action is regarded under a national provision as inadmissible from the time it is brought in relation to the first defendant.