# C_2009044EN.01003301.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/33 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 December 2008 — KLG Europe Eersel BV v Reedereikontor Adolf Zeuner GmbH

(Case C-534/08)

(2009/C 44/54)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: KLG Europe Eersel BV

Respondent: Reedereikontor Adolf Zeuner GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the term ‘between the same parties’ in Article 34(3) 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 refer to the rules on the subjective scope of the operation of judgments of the Member States concerned, or is it intended to give to the subjective scope of the operation of the competing judgments a more precise interpretation in isolation from that regulation? |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is that the term ‘the same parties’ is intended to give to the subjective scope of the operation of the competing judgments a more precise interpretation in isolation from Regulation No 44/2001:
(i)
must, in the interpretation of that term in Article 34(3) of Regulation No 44/2001, support be sought in the interpretation which the Court of Justice of the European Communities gave to the term ‘between the same parties’ in Article 21 of the Brussels Convention (now Article 27 of Regulation No 44/2001) in its judgment in Case C-351/96 Drouot assurances v CMI and Others [1998] ECR I-3075; and (ii)
must K-Line, which was a party to the Rotterdam proceedings, but not to the Düsseldorf proceedings, be deemed, because of the assignment and mandate, to be ‘the same party’ as Zeuner, which was a party to the Düsseldorf proceedings, but not to the Rotterdam proceedings? | (i) | must, in the interpretation of that term in Article 34(3) of Regulation No 44/2001, support be sought in the interpretation which the Court of Justice of the European Communities gave to the term ‘between the same parties’ in Article 21 of the Brussels Convention (now Article 27 of Regulation No 44/2001) in its judgment in Case C-351/96 Drouot assurances v CMI and Others [1998] ECR I-3075; and | (ii) | must K-Line, which was a party to the Rotterdam proceedings, but not to the Düsseldorf proceedings, be deemed, because of the assignment and mandate, to be ‘the same party’ as Zeuner, which was a party to the Düsseldorf proceedings, but not to the Rotterdam proceedings? |
| ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| (i) | must, in the interpretation of that term in Article 34(3) of Regulation No 44/2001, support be sought in the interpretation which the Court of Justice of the European Communities gave to the term ‘between the same parties’ in Article 21 of the Brussels Convention (now Article 27 of Regulation No 44/2001) in its judgment in Case C-351/96 Drouot assurances v CMI and Others [1998] ECR I-3075; and | | | | |
| (ii) | must K-Line, which was a party to the Rotterdam proceedings, but not to the Düsseldorf proceedings, be deemed, because of the assignment and mandate, to be ‘the same party’ as Zeuner, which was a party to the Düsseldorf proceedings, but not to the Rotterdam proceedings? | | | | |

| 3. | If reliance on the ground for refusal laid down in Article 34(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 is to succeed,
(i)
must the judgment given in the Member State in which recognition is sought have acquired the force of res judicata? (ii)
must the judgment given in the Member State in which recognition is sought precede the submission of the application for enforcement or the granting of the order for enforcement? | (i) | must the judgment given in the Member State in which recognition is sought have acquired the force of res judicata? | (ii) | must the judgment given in the Member State in which recognition is sought precede the submission of the application for enforcement or the granting of the order for enforcement? |
| ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| (i) | must the judgment given in the Member State in which recognition is sought have acquired the force of res judicata? | | | | |
| (ii) | must the judgment given in the Member State in which recognition is sought precede the submission of the application for enforcement or the granting of the order for enforcement? | | | | |

---

( 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).

---