# C_2017300EN.01001401.xml

| 11.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie (Poland) lodged on 7 June 2017 — Feniks Sp. z o.o. v Azteca Products & Services SL

(Case C-337/17)

(2017/C 300/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Feniks Sp. z o.o., established in Szczecin

Applicant:

Defendant: Azteca Products & Services SL, established in Alcora

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a case brought against a buyer established in one Member State, seeking a declaration that a contract for the sale of immovable property situated in the territory of another Member State, which was concluded and performed in its entirety in the territory of another Member State, is ineffective on the ground of detriment to the seller’s creditors, constitute a ‘matter relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) 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? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a case brought against a buyer established in one Member State, seeking a declaration that a contract for the sale of immovable property situated in the territory of another Member State, which was concluded and performed in its entirety in the territory of another Member State, is ineffective on the ground of detriment to the seller’s creditors, constitute a ‘matter relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) 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?

1

| 2. | Must the above question be answered applying the principle of acte éclairé with reference to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Handte v Traitements mécano-chimiques des surfaces SA, C-26/91, EU:C:1992:268, despite the fact that it concerned the liability for defects in goods of a manufacturer who could not foresee to whom the goods would subsequently be sold, and thus who would be able to bring claims against him, whereas the present action against a buyer ‘seeking a declaration that a contract for the sale of immovable property is ineffective’ on the ground of detriment to the seller’s creditors, requires, in order to be effective, knowledge on the part of the buyer that the legal act (contract of sale) was done with detriment to creditors, and thus the buyer must anticipate that such an action may be brought by a personal creditor of the seller? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the above question be answered applying the principle of acte éclairé with reference to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Handte v Traitements mécano-chimiques des surfaces SA, C-26/91, EU:C:1992:268, despite the fact that it concerned the liability for defects in goods of a manufacturer who could not foresee to whom the goods would subsequently be sold, and thus who would be able to bring claims against him, whereas the present action against a buyer ‘seeking a declaration that a contract for the sale of immovable property is ineffective’ on the ground of detriment to the seller’s creditors, requires, in order to be effective, knowledge on the part of the buyer that the legal act (contract of sale) was done with detriment to creditors, and thus the buyer must anticipate that such an action may be brought by a personal creditor of the seller?

Handte

Traitements mécano-chimiques des surfaces SA

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

1

---