Case C-534/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 December 2008 — KLG Europe Eersel BV v Reedereikontor Adolf Zeuner GmbH
Date: 2008-12-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, competition law, interpretation of the law, productivity

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/33

4. In the event of an application for a declaration of enforce-
ability, does Article 31(3) and (4) of the CMR Convention
permit the court of the State addressed to examine whether
the court of the State of origin had international jurisdiction
to take cognisance of the dispute?

5. Must Article 71(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted
as meaning that, in the event of the concurrence of the lis
pendens rules of the CMR Convention and those of Regu-
lation No 44/2001, the lis pendens rules of the CMR Conven-
tion take precedence over those of Regulation No 44/2001?

6. Do the declaration in law applied for in the present case in
the Netherlands and the action in Germany seeking compen-
sation in respect of damage relate to ‘the same grounds’
within the meaning of Article 31(2) of the CMR Convention?

(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).

2. If the answer to the first question is that the term ‘the same
parties’
is intended to give to the subjective scope of the
operation of the competing judgments a more precise inter-
pretation in isolation from Regulation No 44/2001:

(i) must, in the interpretation of that term in Article 34(3)
of Regulation No 44/2001, support be sought in the
interpretation which the Court of Justice of the European
Communities gave to the term ‘between the same parties’
in Article 21 of the Brussels Convention (now Article 27
of Regulation No 44/2001)
in Case
C-351/96 Drouot assurances v CMI and Others [1998] ECR
I-3075; and

in its judgment

(ii) must K-Line, which was a party to the Rotterdam
proceedings, but not to the Düsseldorf proceedings, be
deemed, because of the assignment and mandate, to be
‘the same party’ as Zeuner, which was a party to the
Düsseldorf proceedings, but not
to the Rotterdam
proceedings?

3. If

reliance on the ground for

refusal

laid down in

Article 34(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 is to succeed,

(i) must the judgment given in the Member State in which
recognition is sought have acquired the force of res judi-
cata?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 December 2008 —
KLG Europe Eersel BV v Reedereikontor Adolf Zeuner
GmbH

(ii) must the judgment given in the Member State in which
recognition is sought precede the submission of
the
application for enforcement or the granting of the order
for enforcement?

(Case C-534/08)

(2009/C 44/54)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: KLG Europe Eersel BV

Respondent: Reedereikontor Adolf Zeuner GmbH

(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).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 4 December 2008 —
Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X

(Case C-536/08)

(2009/C 44/55)

Language of the case: Dutch

Questions referred

1. Does the term ‘between the same parties’ in Article 34(3) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December
2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of
judgments in civil and commercial matters refer to the rules
on the subjective scope of the operation of judgments of the
Member States concerned, or is it intended to give to the
subjective scope of the operation of the competing judg-
ments a more precise interpretation in isolation from that
regulation?

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: X