# C_2022368EN.01001201.xml

| 26.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Pontevedra (Spain) lodged on 25 May 2022 — Maersk A/S v Allianz Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A.

(Case C-345/22)

(2022/C 368/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Pontevedra

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Maersk A/S

Respondent: Allianz Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A.

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the provision in Article 25 of Regulation 1215/2012 (1) which establishes that the automatic nullity of the agreement conferring jurisdiction must be examined in accordance with the law of the Member State on which the parties have conferred jurisdiction also apply — in a situation such as that in the main proceedings — to the question of the validity of the application of the clause to a third party who is not a party to the contract containing the clause in question? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the provision in Article 25 of Regulation 1215/2012 (1) which establishes that the automatic nullity of the agreement conferring jurisdiction must be examined in accordance with the law of the Member State on which the parties have conferred jurisdiction also apply — in a situation such as that in the main proceedings — to the question of the validity of the application of the clause to a third party who is not a party to the contract containing the clause in question?

| 2. | Where the bill of lading is delivered to a third-party consignee of the goods who was not involved in the conclusion of the contract between the shipper and the maritime carrier, is a rule such as that in Article 251 of the Ley de Navegación Marítima (Shipping Law), which requires that, in order to be enforceable against that third party, the jurisdiction clause must have been negotiated ‘individually and separately’ with that party, compatible with Article 25 of Regulation 1215/2012 and with the case-law of the European Court of Justice interpreting that article? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Where the bill of lading is delivered to a third-party consignee of the goods who was not involved in the conclusion of the contract between the shipper and the maritime carrier, is a rule such as that in Article 251 of the Ley de Navegación Marítima (Shipping Law), which requires that, in order to be enforceable against that third party, the jurisdiction clause must have been negotiated ‘individually and separately’ with that party, compatible with Article 25 of Regulation 1215/2012 and with the case-law of the European Court of Justice interpreting that article?

| 3. | Is it possible under EU law for Member States’ legislation to establish additional validity requirements in order for jurisdiction clauses included in bills of lading to be enforceable against third parties? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it possible under EU law for Member States’ legislation to establish additional validity requirements in order for jurisdiction clauses included in bills of lading to be enforceable against third parties?

| 4. | Does a rule such as that in Article 251 of the Spanish Shipping Law — which establishes that the subrogation of the third-party holder is only partial, and does not apply to prorogation of jurisdiction clauses — entail the introduction of an additional requirement for the validity of such clauses, contrary to Article 25 of Regulation 1215/2012? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does a rule such as that in Article 251 of the Spanish Shipping Law — which establishes that the subrogation of the third-party holder is only partial, and does not apply to prorogation of jurisdiction clauses — entail the introduction of an additional requirement for the validity of such clauses, contrary to Article 25 of Regulation 1215/2012?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

---