Case C-47/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 30 January 2014 — Holterman Ferho Exploitatie BV and Others, other party: F.L.F. Spies von Büllesheim
Date: 2014-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrator, business management, work contract








C_2014102EN.01002002.xml










7.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 30 January 2014 — Holterman Ferho Exploitatie BV and Others, other party: F.L.F. Spies von Büllesheim
(Case C-47/14)
2014/C 102/29
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Holterman Ferho Exploitatie BV, Ferho Bewehrungsstahl GmbH, Ferho Vechta GmbH and Ferho Frankfurt GmbH

Other party: F.L.F. Spies von Büllesheim

Questions referred







1.


Must the provisions of Section 5 of Chapter II (Articles 18-21) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) be interpreted as precluding the application by the courts of Article 5(1)(a) or of Article 5(3) of that Regulation in a case such as that at issue here, where the defendant is held liable by the company not only in his capacity as director of that company on the basis of the improper performance of his duties or on the basis of unlawful conduct, but quite apart from that capacity, is also held liable by that company on the basis of intent or deliberate recklessness in the execution of the contract of employment entered into between him and the company?










2








(a)


If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, must the term ‘matters relating to a contract’ in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 then be interpreted as also applying to a case such as that at issue here, where a company holds a person liable in his capacity as director of that company on the basis of the breach of his obligation to properly perform his duties under company law?










(b)


If the answer to question 2(a) is in the affirmative, must the term ‘place of performance of the obligation in question’ in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 then be interpreted as referring to the place where the director performed or should have performed his duties under company law, which, as a rule, will be the place where the company concerned has its central administration or its principal place of business, as referred to in Article 60(1)(b) and (c) of that Regulation?














3








(a)


If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, must the term ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 then be interpreted as also applying to a case such as that at issue here, where a company holds a person liable in his capacity as director of that company on the basis of the improper performance of his duties under company law or on the basis of unlawful conduct?










(b)


If the answer to question 3(a) is in the affirmative, must the term ‘place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 be interpreted as referring to the place where the director performed or should have performed his duties under company law, which, as a rule, will be the place where the company concerned has its central administration or its principal place of business, as referred to in Article 60(1)(b) and (c) of that Regulation?










(1)  Council Regulation of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).