Case C-305/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 4 June 2013 — Haeger & Schmidt GmbH v Mutuelles du Mans assurances Iard SA (MMA Iard), Jacques Lorio, Dominique Miquel, in his capacity as liquidator of Safram intercontinental SARL, Ace Insurance SA NV, Va Tech JST SA, Axa Corporate Solutions SA
Date: 2013-06-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, carriage of goods, contract of carriage, interpretation of the law, transport regulations








C_2013207EN.01003501.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/35





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 4 June 2013 — Haeger & Schmidt GmbH v Mutuelles du Mans assurances Iard SA (MMA Iard), Jacques Lorio, Dominique Miquel, in his capacity as liquidator of Safram intercontinental SARL, Ace Insurance SA NV, Va Tech JST SA, Axa Corporate Solutions SA
(Case C-305/13)
2013/C 207/58
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Haeger & Schmidt GmbH

Defendants: Mutuelles du Mans assurances Iard SA (MMA Iard), Jacques Lorio, Dominique Miquel, in his capacity as liquidator of Safram intercontinental SARL, Ace Insurance SA NV, Va Tech JST SA, Axa Corporate Solutions SA

Questions referred







1.


May a commission contract for the carriage of goods by which a principal entrusts an agent, acting in his own name and under his own responsibility, with the organisation of the carriage of goods, which the agent will arrange to have carried out by one or more carriers on behalf of the principal, have as its main purpose the carriage of goods within the meaning of the last sentence of Article 4(4) of the Rome Convention of 19 June 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations and (1) and, if so, under what conditions?










2.


If a commission contract for the carriage of goods may be regarded as a contract for the carriage of goods for the purpose of Article 4(4) of the Rome Convention but the special presumption for the determination of the relevant law laid down by that provision is not applicable — since the requirement in the provision that the country in which the carrier has his principal place of business must also be the country in which the place of loading or the place of discharge or the principal place of business of the consignor is situated is not fulfilled — is the first sentence of that provision, to the effect that a contract for the carriage of goods is not subject to the general presumption laid down in Article 4(2), to be interpreted as meaning that the court is invited in such circumstances to ascertain the law applicable, not on the basis of that presumption, which has been definitively ruled out, but in accordance with the general principle of determination laid down in Article 4(1), namely by identifying the country with which the contract is most closely connected, without specific regard for the country in which the party which effected the performance which is characteristic of the contract is established?










3.


On the assumption that a commission contract for the carriage of goods is subject to the general presumption in Article 4(2), is it possible, where the initial contractor concluded an agreement with the first agent, who subsequently arranged for his replacement by a second agent, to allow the law applicable to the contractual relationship between the contractor and that second agent to be determined on the basis of the place of establishment of the first agent, the law of the country thus designated being deemed generally applicable to the carriage of goods transaction as a whole?






(1)  Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1).