# C_2019155EN.01003301.xml

| 6.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 26 February 2019 — Supreme Site Services GmbH, Supreme Fuels GmbH & Co KG, Supreme Fuels Trading Fze v Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe

(Case C-186/19)

(2019/C 155/39)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Supreme Site Services GmbH, Supreme Fuels GmbH & Co KG, Supreme Fuels Trading Fze

Defendant: Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe

Questions referred

| 1. | (a) | Must 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 (recast) (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1; ‘Brussel I Regulation (recast)’) be interpreted as meaning that a matter such as that at issue in the present case, in which an international organisation brings an action to (i) lift an interim garnishee order levied in another Member State by the opposing party, and (ii) prohibit the opposing party from levying, on the same grounds, an interim garnishee order in the future and from basing those actions on immunity of execution, must be wholly or partially considered to be a civil or commercial matter as referred to in Article 1(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast)? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

(a)

Must 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 (recast) (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1; ‘Brussel I Regulation (recast)’) be interpreted as meaning that a matter such as that at issue in the present case, in which an international organisation brings an action to (i) lift an interim garnishee order levied in another Member State by the opposing party, and (ii) prohibit the opposing party from levying, on the same grounds, an interim garnishee order in the future and from basing those actions on immunity of execution, must be wholly or partially considered to be a civil or commercial matter as referred to in Article 1(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast)?

| (b) | In answering question 1(a), what significance, if any, should be attached to the fact that the court of a Member State has granted leave to attach for a claim which the opposing party alleges to have against the international organisation, a claim in respect of which substantive proceedings are pending in that Member State, relating to a contractual dispute over the payment for fuels supplied for a peace operation carried out by an international organisation connected to the international organisation concerned? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

In answering question 1(a), what significance, if any, should be attached to the fact that the court of a Member State has granted leave to attach for a claim which the opposing party alleges to have against the international organisation, a claim in respect of which substantive proceedings are pending in that Member State, relating to a contractual dispute over the payment for fuels supplied for a peace operation carried out by an international organisation connected to the international organisation concerned?

| 2. | (a) | If question 1(a) is answered in the affirmative, must Article 24(5) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) be interpreted as meaning that, in a case in which the court of a Member State has granted leave to levy an interim garnishee order and that garnishee order has subsequently been levied in another Member State, the courts of the Member State where the interim garnishee order was levied have exclusive jurisdiction to hear a claim for the lifting of that garnishee order? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

(a)

If question 1(a) is answered in the affirmative, must Article 24(5) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) be interpreted as meaning that, in a case in which the court of a Member State has granted leave to levy an interim garnishee order and that garnishee order has subsequently been levied in another Member State, the courts of the Member State where the interim garnishee order was levied have exclusive jurisdiction to hear a claim for the lifting of that garnishee order?

| (b) | In answering question 2(a), what significance, if any, should be attached to the fact that the international organisation has based its action to lift the interim garnishee order on immunity of execution? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

In answering question 2(a), what significance, if any, should be attached to the fact that the international organisation has based its action to lift the interim garnishee order on immunity of execution?

| 3. | If, in answering the question of whether a civil or commercial matter as referred to in Article 1(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) is at issue, or alternatively, the question of whether a claim falling within the scope of Article 24(5) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) is at issue, significance is attached to the fact that the international organisation has based its claims on immunity of execution, to what extent is the court seised of the matter obliged to assess whether the reliance on immunity of execution is effective, and in that regard does the rule apply that it must assess all the evidence available to it, including, where appropriate, the disputes involving the respondent, or any other rule? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If, in answering the question of whether a civil or commercial matter as referred to in Article 1(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) is at issue, or alternatively, the question of whether a claim falling within the scope of Article 24(5) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) is at issue, significance is attached to the fact that the international organisation has based its claims on immunity of execution, to what extent is the court seised of the matter obliged to assess whether the reliance on immunity of execution is effective, and in that regard does the rule apply that it must assess all the evidence available to it, including, where appropriate, the disputes involving the respondent, or any other rule?

---