Case C-430/24, Badzhanova: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 June 2024 – K. P. V.
Date: 2024-06-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: branch, enforcement of ruling, injunction, judicial cooperation, judicial power, jurisdiction, law of states, summary procedure








C_202405083EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5083


26.8.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 June 2024 – K. P. V.


(Case C-430/24, Badzhanova)
                (1)

(C/2024/5083)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Party to the main proceedings


Applicant: K. P. V.

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 7(1)(a) and Article 7(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (2) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (‘Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012’), in conjunction with Article 5(1) thereof, be interpreted as
laying down mandatory rules on the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States within the European Union, which cannot be excluded [by] provisions of national law concerning specific types of simplified proceedings, in respect of which special conditions governing the jurisdiction of the national courts are also laid down?










2.


Irrespective of the answer to the first question, must Article 7(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, interpreted in accordance with the judgment of 11 April 2019 in Case C-464/18, (3) Ryanair DAC, be interpreted as meaning that
the concept of ‘branch, agency or other establishment’ is an autonomous concept of EU law and, if so, what is its meaning in relation to the requirement regarding the conclusion of a contract within the scope of the establishment’s operation?










3.


If the answer to the first question is in the negative – that is to say, that those provisions are not mandatory – and the answer to the first part of the second question is in the affirmative, must Article 7(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, interpreted in accordance with the judgment of 13 November 1990 in Case C-106/89, (4) Marleasing, be interpreted as meaning that
provisions of national law which provide for jurisdiction on the basis of the existence of a ‘place of business’ in a particular Member State must be interpreted, in relation to that concept, in accordance with the interpretation of the concept of ‘branch, agency or establishment’ given by the Court of Justice of the European Union?










4.


Must Article 7(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012 be interpreted as
governing, for the purpose of determining jurisdiction for actions lodged against a branch, agency or establishment, not only the allocation of jurisdiction as between the Member States of the European Union, but also the allocation of territorial jurisdiction as between the courts of each individual State?










5.


Must Article 28(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, interpreted in accordance with the guidance provided in the judgment of 9 September 2021 in Cases C-208/20 and C-256/20, (5) Toplofikatsia Sofia, be interpreted as
not allowing the court, in unilateral national proceedings, such as those for an order concerning a claim for enforcement, in which the defendant only becomes a party to the proceedings after the judicial decision has been issued, to decide on its jurisdiction only after an attempt has been made to serve a judicial decision on the defendant?






(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  
            OJ 2012 L 351, p.1.

(3)  ECLI:EU:C:2019:311.

(4)  ECLI:EU:C:1990:395.

(5)  ECLI:EU:C:2021:719.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5083/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)