# C_2010246EN.01002901.xml

| 11.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/29

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní Soud v Chebu (Czech Republic) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Hypoteční banka, a.s. v Udo Mike Lindner

(Case C-327/10)

()

2010/C 246/49

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Referring court

Okresní Soud v Chebu

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hypoteční banka, a.s.

Applicant:

Defendant: Udo Mike Lindner

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | If one of the parties to court proceedings is a national of a State other than the one in which those proceedings are taking place, does that fact provide a basis for the cross-border element within the meaning of Article 81 (formerly Article 65) of the Treaty, which is one of the conditions for the applicability 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 (‘the Brussels I Regulation’)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

If one of the parties to court proceedings is a national of a State other than the one in which those proceedings are taking place, does that fact provide a basis for the cross-border element within the meaning of Article 81 (formerly Article 65) of the Treaty, which is one of the conditions for the applicability 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 (‘the Brussels I Regulation’)?

1

| 2. | Does the Brussels I Regulation preclude the use of provisions of national law which enable proceedings to be brought against persons of unknown address? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Brussels I Regulation preclude the use of provisions of national law which enable proceedings to be brought against persons of unknown address?

| 3. | If Question 2 is answered in the negative, can the making of submissions by a court-appointed guardian of the defendant in the case be regarded on its own as submission by the defendant to the jurisdiction of the local court for the purposes of Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation, even where the subject-matter of the dispute is a claim arising out of a consumer contract and the courts of the Czech Republic would not have jurisdiction under Article 16(2) of that regulation to determine that dispute? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the negative, can the making of submissions by a court-appointed guardian of the defendant in the case be regarded on its own as submission by the defendant to the jurisdiction of the local court for the purposes of Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation, even where the subject-matter of the dispute is a claim arising out of a consumer contract and the courts of the Czech Republic would not have jurisdiction under Article 16(2) of that regulation to determine that dispute?

| 4. | Can an agreement on the local jurisdiction of a particular court be regarded as establishing the international jurisdiction of the chosen court for the purposes of Article 17(3) of the Brussels I Regulation, and, if so, does that apply even if the agreement on local jurisdiction is invalid for conflict with Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (2) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Can an agreement on the local jurisdiction of a particular court be regarded as establishing the international jurisdiction of the chosen court for the purposes of Article 17(3) of the Brussels I Regulation, and, if so, does that apply even if the agreement on local jurisdiction is invalid for conflict with Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (2) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?

2

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

2

---