# C_2004300EN.01000401.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/4

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 14 October 2004

in Case C-39/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret): Mærsk Olie & Gas A/S v Firma M. de Haan en W. de Boer (1)

1

(Brussels Convention - Proceedings to establish a fund to limit liability in respect of the use of a ship - Action for damages - Article 21 - Lis pendens - Identical parties - Court first seised - Identical subject-matter and cause of action - None - Article 25 - ‘Judgment’ - Article 27(2) - Refusal to recognise)

(2004/C 300/06)

Language of the case: Danish

In Case C-39/02: reference to the Court under the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, brought by the Højesteret (Supreme Court) (Denmark), by decision of 8 February 2002, received at the Court on 13 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Mærsk Olie & Gas A/S and Firma M. de Haan en W. de Boer — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, acting as President of the Third Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it has ruled:

| 1. | An application to a court of a Contracting State by a shipowner for the establishment of a liability limitation fund, in which the potential victim of the damage is indicated, and an action for damages brought before a court of another Contracting State by that victim against the shipowner do not create a situation of lis pendens within the terms of Article 21 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. |
| --- | --- |

1.

An application to a court of a Contracting State by a shipowner for the establishment of a liability limitation fund, in which the potential victim of the damage is indicated, and an action for damages brought before a court of another Contracting State by that victim against the shipowner do not create a situation of lis pendens within the terms of Article 21 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

| 2. | A decision ordering the establishment of a liability limitation fund, such as that in the main proceedings in the present case, is a judgment within the terms of Article 25 of that Convention. |
| --- | --- |

2.

A decision ordering the establishment of a liability limitation fund, such as that in the main proceedings in the present case, is a judgment within the terms of Article 25 of that Convention.

| 3. | A decision to establish a liability limitation fund, in the absence of prior service on the claimant concerned, and even where the latter has appealed against that decision in order to challenge the jurisdiction of the court which delivered it, cannot be refused recognition in another Contracting State pursuant to Article 27(2) of that Convention, on condition that it was duly served on or notified to the defendant in good time. |
| --- | --- |

3.

A decision to establish a liability limitation fund, in the absence of prior service on the claimant concerned, and even where the latter has appealed against that decision in order to challenge the jurisdiction of the court which delivered it, cannot be refused recognition in another Contracting State pursuant to Article 27(2) of that Convention, on condition that it was duly served on or notified to the defendant in good time.

---

(1)  OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.

1

---