# C_2013260EN.01003002.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 1 July 2013 — Profit Investment Sim SpA, in liquidation v Stefano Ossi and Commerzbank AG

(Case C-366/13)

2013/C 260/55

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Profit Investment Sim SpA, in liquidation

Appellant:

Respondents: Stefano Ossi, Commerzbank AG

Respondents:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Can the connecting link between different actions referred to in Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 (1) be said to exist where the subject-matter of the heads of claim put forward in those actions and the basis for the pleas in law raised therein are different and there is no relationship between them of subordination or logical and legal incompatibility, but the upholding of one of those actions is nonetheless potentially capable, in practice, of affecting the extent of the interest on the grounds of which the other action has been brought? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the connecting link between different actions referred to in Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 (1) be said to exist where the subject-matter of the heads of claim put forward in those actions and the basis for the pleas in law raised therein are different and there is no relationship between them of subordination or logical and legal incompatibility, but the upholding of one of those actions is nonetheless potentially capable, in practice, of affecting the extent of the interest on the grounds of which the other action has been brought?

1

| 2. | Can the requirement that the agreement conferring jurisdiction be in written form, as laid down in Article 23(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001, be said to be satisfied where such an agreement is inserted into the document (Information Memorandum) that has been created unilaterally by a bond issuer, with the effect that the prorogation of jurisdiction is made applicable to disputes involving any future purchaser concerning the validity of those bonds? If not, can it be said that the insertion of that agreement into the document governing a bond issue which is intended for cross-border movement corresponds to a form which accords with usages in international trade or commerce within the terms of Article 23(1)(c) of that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the requirement that the agreement conferring jurisdiction be in written form, as laid down in Article 23(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001, be said to be satisfied where such an agreement is inserted into the document (Information Memorandum) that has been created unilaterally by a bond issuer, with the effect that the prorogation of jurisdiction is made applicable to disputes involving any future purchaser concerning the validity of those bonds? If not, can it be said that the insertion of that agreement into the document governing a bond issue which is intended for cross-border movement corresponds to a form which accords with usages in international trade or commerce within the terms of Article 23(1)(c) of that regulation?

| 3. | Should the expression ‘matters relating to a contract’, as used in Article 5(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, be understood to refer only to disputes in which the applicant intends to assert before the court the binding legal relationship arising from the contract and to disputes which are closely linked to that relationship, or must it be extended so as also to include disputes in which the applicant, far from invoking the contract, disputes the existence of a legally valid and binding contractual relationship and seeks to obtain a refund of the amount paid on the basis of a document which, in its view, is bereft of legal value? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Should the expression ‘matters relating to a contract’, as used in Article 5(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, be understood to refer only to disputes in which the applicant intends to assert before the court the binding legal relationship arising from the contract and to disputes which are closely linked to that relationship, or must it be extended so as also to include disputes in which the applicant, far from invoking the contract, disputes the existence of a legally valid and binding contractual relationship and seeks to obtain a refund of the amount paid on the basis of a document which, in its view, is bereft of legal value?

---

(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).

1

---