# C_2020054EN.01000501.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus - Finland) – ML v Aktiva Finants OÜ

(Case C-433/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Requirement for adversarial proceedings and an effective remedy - Decision of a national court declaring enforceable a judgment delivered by a court of another Member State - National procedure granting leave for further consideration of an appeal)

(2020/C 54/06)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ML

Defendant: Aktiva Finants OÜ

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 43(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not precluding a procedure granting leave for further consideration of an appeal in which, first, a court of appeal rules on the grant of that leave on the basis of the judgment delivered at first instance, the appeal brought before it, any observations of the respondent and, if necessary, other information in the file and, second, leave for further consideration must be granted, in particular, if there are doubts as to the correctness of the judgment in question, if it is not possible to assess the correctness of that judgment without granting leave for further consideration or if there is another significant reason to grant leave for further consideration of the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 43(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not precluding a procedure granting leave for further consideration of an appeal in which, first, a court of appeal rules on the grant of that leave on the basis of the judgment delivered at first instance, the appeal brought before it, any observations of the respondent and, if necessary, other information in the file and, second, leave for further consideration must be granted, in particular, if there are doubts as to the correctness of the judgment in question, if it is not possible to assess the correctness of that judgment without granting leave for further consideration or if there is another significant reason to grant leave for further consideration of the appeal;

| 2. | Article 43(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as not precluding a procedure examining an appeal against a judgment on the application for a declaration of enforceability which does not require the respondent to be heard in advance when a decision in the respondent’s favour is made. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 43(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as not precluding a procedure examining an appeal against a judgment on the application for a declaration of enforceability which does not require the respondent to be heard in advance when a decision in the respondent’s favour is made.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.

---