# C_2011331EN.01001202.xml

| 12.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 2 September 2011 — 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)

2011/C 331/20

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG, ERGO Versicherung AG, Versicherungskammer Bayern-Versicherungsanstalt des öffentlichen Rechts, Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs-AG, Krones AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Samskip GmbH

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 32 and 33 of Brussels I (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘judgment’ also covers in principle those judgments which are restricted to the finding that the procedural requirements for admissibility are not satisfied (so-called ‘procedural judgments’)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 32 and 33 of Brussels I (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘judgment’ also covers in principle those judgments which are restricted to the finding that the procedural requirements for admissibility are not satisfied (so-called ‘procedural judgments’)?

1

| 2. | Are Articles 32 and 33 of Brussels I to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘judgment’ also covers a final judgment by which a court is found to have no international jurisdiction by virtue of an agreement conferring jurisdiction? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are Articles 32 and 33 of Brussels I to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘judgment’ also covers a final judgment by which a court is found to have no international jurisdiction by virtue of an agreement conferring jurisdiction?

| 3. | In the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice on the principle of further effects (Case C-145/86 Hoffmann v Krieg [1988] ECR 645), are Articles 32 and 33 of Brussels I to be interpreted to the effect that each Member State is required to recognise the judgments of a court or tribunal of another Member State on the effectiveness of an agreement conferring jurisdiction between the parties, where the finding as to the effectiveness of the agreement conferring jurisdiction has become final under the national law of the first court, even where that decision forms part of a judgment on a procedural matter dismissing the action? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice on the principle of further effects (Case C-145/86 Hoffmann v Krieg [1988] ECR 645), are Articles 32 and 33 of Brussels I to be interpreted to the effect that each Member State is required to recognise the judgments of a court or tribunal of another Member State on the effectiveness of an agreement conferring jurisdiction between the parties, where the finding as to the effectiveness of the agreement conferring jurisdiction has become final under the national law of the first court, even where that decision forms part of a judgment on a procedural matter dismissing the action?

Hoffmann

Krieg

---

(1)  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).

1

---