# C_2022064EN.01002001.xml

| 7.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 24 November 2021 — Recamier SA v BR

(Case C-707/21)

(2022/C 64/31)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Recamier SA

Respondent: BR

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 33(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 (1) (‘Brussels I’) to be interpreted as meaning that the autonomous definition of res judicata covers all the conditions and effects of res judicata or that certain conditions and effects may be determined by the law of the court seised and/or the law of the court which gave the decision? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 33(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 (1) (‘Brussels I’) to be interpreted as meaning that the autonomous definition of res judicata covers all the conditions and effects of res judicata or that certain conditions and effects may be determined by the law of the court seised and/or the law of the court which gave the decision?

| 2. | In the first scenario, are applications made before the courts of two Member States to be regarded, in the light of the autonomous definition of res judicata, as having the same cause of action where the applicant pleads identical facts but relies on different pleas in law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the first scenario, are applications made before the courts of two Member States to be regarded, in the light of the autonomous definition of res judicata, as having the same cause of action where the applicant pleads identical facts but relies on different pleas in law?

| 3. | Are two applications, one founded in contractual liability and the other in liability in tort, but based on the same legal relationship, such as the performance of duties as a director, to be regarded as having the same cause of action? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are two applications, one founded in contractual liability and the other in liability in tort, but based on the same legal relationship, such as the performance of duties as a director, to be regarded as having the same cause of action?

| 4. | In the second scenario, does Article 33(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, pursuant to which it has been held that a judicial decision must move within the Member States with the same scope and the same effects as it has in the Member State in which it was given, require that reference is made to the law of the court of origin or does it allow, with regard to the procedural consequences attached to it, the law of the court in which enforcement is sought to be applied? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the second scenario, does Article 33(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, pursuant to which it has been held that a judicial decision must move within the Member States with the same scope and the same effects as it has in the Member State in which it was given, require that reference is made to the law of the court of origin or does it allow, with regard to the procedural consequences attached to it, the law of the court in which enforcement is sought to be applied?

---

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

---