# C_2012151EN.01002502.xml

| 26.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för Nedre Norrland (Court of Appeal for Southern Norrland) (Sweden) lodged on 26 March 2012 — ÖFAB, Östergötlands Fastigheter AB v Frank Koot, Evergreen Investments B.V.

(Case C-147/12)

2012/C 151/40

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Referring court

Hovrätten för Nedre Norrland (Court of Appeal for Southern Norrland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: ÖFAB, Östergötlands Fastigheter AB

Defendants:

| 1. | Frank Koot |
| --- | --- |

1.

Frank Koot

| 2. | Evergreen Investments B.V. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Evergreen Investments B.V.

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 5(1) and 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted in such a way that they constitute a comprehensive derogation from the main rule of Article 2 in compensation disputes? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 5(1) and 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted in such a way that they constitute a comprehensive derogation from the main rule of Article 2 in compensation disputes?

1

| 2. | Is the term ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ in Article 5(3) of the Regulation to be interpreted in such a way that the provision covers the action of a creditor against a director of a company if the action seeks to hold the director liable for the company’s debts where the director has failed to make formal arrangements to monitor the company’s financial situation and instead has continued to operate the company and has burdened it with further debts? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the term ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ in Article 5(3) of the Regulation to be interpreted in such a way that the provision covers the action of a creditor against a director of a company if the action seeks to hold the director liable for the company’s debts where the director has failed to make formal arrangements to monitor the company’s financial situation and instead has continued to operate the company and has burdened it with further debts?

| 3. | Is the term ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ in Article 5(3) of the Regulation to be interpreted in such a way that the provision covers an action of a creditor against the owner of a company if the action seeks to make the owner liable for the company’s debts when the shareholder continues to conduct business despite the fact that the business is undercapitalised and the company is obliged to go into liquidation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the term ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ in Article 5(3) of the Regulation to be interpreted in such a way that the provision covers an action of a creditor against the owner of a company if the action seeks to make the owner liable for the company’s debts when the shareholder continues to conduct business despite the fact that the business is undercapitalised and the company is obliged to go into liquidation?

| 4. | Is the term ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ in Article 5(3) of the Regulation to be interpreted in such a way that it covers the action of a creditor against the owner of a company who has undertaken to discharge a company’s debts? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the term ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ in Article 5(3) of the Regulation to be interpreted in such a way that it covers the action of a creditor against the owner of a company who has undertaken to discharge a company’s debts?

| 5. | If the answer to question 3 is in the affirmative, is any harm arising deemed to have occurred in the Netherlands or in Sweden, if the director is domiciled in the Netherlands and the breaches of the board’s obligations relate to a Swedish company? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the answer to question 3 is in the affirmative, is any harm arising deemed to have occurred in the Netherlands or in Sweden, if the director is domiciled in the Netherlands and the breaches of the board’s obligations relate to a Swedish company?

| 6. | If the answer to questions 4 or 5 is in the affirmative, is any harm arising deemed to have occurred in the Netherlands or in Sweden if the owner is domiciled in the Netherlands and the company is Swedish? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If the answer to questions 4 or 5 is in the affirmative, is any harm arising deemed to have occurred in the Netherlands or in Sweden if the owner is domiciled in the Netherlands and the company is Swedish?

| 7. | If Articles 5(1) or 5(3) of the Regulation are applicable in any of the situations described, is it of any relevance to the application of those articles if a claim has been transferred from the original creditor to another person? |
| --- | --- |

7.

If Articles 5(1) or 5(3) of the Regulation are applicable in any of the situations described, is it of any relevance to the application of those articles if a claim has been transferred from the original creditor to another person?

---

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

1

---