.
21 IT MUST NEVERTHELESS BE MADE CLEAR THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATIONAL PROCEDURAL LAW OF THE COURT HEARING THE PROCEEDINGS MUST NOT IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES LEAD TO FRUSTRATION OF THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THAT REGARD , WHETHER EXPRESSLY OR BY IMPLICATION , BY THE CONVENTION ITSELF AND BY ARTICLE 39 THEREOF IN PARTICULAR . ACCORDINGLY , THE QUESTION WHETHER ANY GIVEN PROVISION OF THE NATIONAL PROCEDURAL LAW OF THE COURT HEARING THE PROCEEDINGS IS APPLICABLE TO PROTECTIVE MEASURES TAKEN PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 39 DEPENDS UPON THE SCOPE OF EACH PROVISION OF NATIONAL LAW AND UPON THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 39 .
22 CONSEQUENTLY , IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO REPLY IN GENERAL TERMS TO THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL COURT : IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER IN EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE WHETHER THE NATIONAL PROVISIONS MENTIONED BY THE ITALIAN COURT IN ITS OTHER QUESTIONS ARE COMPATIBLE WITH ARTICLE 39 .
THE NEED TO OBTAIN A SPECIFIC DECISION AUTHORIZING THE PROTECTIVE MEASURES
23 IN ITS SECOND QUESTION THE NATIONAL COURT ASKS WHETHER THERE APPLIES TO PROTECTIVE MEASURES TAKEN PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 39 THE PRINCIPLE EMBODIED IN ITS OWN NATIONAL LAW WHEREBY A PERSON SEEKING TO PROCEED WITH PROTECTIVE SEQUESTRATION MUST FIRST BE AUTHORIZED TO DO SO BY A SPECIFIC DECISION OF THE COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION .
24 AS THE COMMISSION HAS CORRECTLY STATED , THE EFFECT OF ARTICLE 39 IS THAT A PARTY WHO HAS OBTAINED AUTHORIZATION FOR ENFORCEMENT IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO OBTAIN SPECIFIC AND SEPARATE JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH PROTECTIVE MEASURES DURING THE PERIOD MENTIONED IN THAT ARTICLE , EVEN THOUGH SUCH AUTHORIZATION MAY NORMALLY BE REQUIRED BY THE NATIONAL PROCEDURAL LAW OF THE COURT IN QUESTION .
25 THAT CONCLUSION FOLLOWS FROM THE VERY WORDING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 39 WHICH STATES THAT THE DECISION AUTHORIZING ENFORCEMENT ' SHALL CARRY WITH IT ' THE POWER TO PROCEED WITH PROTECTIVE MEASURES . THAT EXPRESSION INDICATES THAT THE RIGHT TO PROCEED WITH SUCH MEASURES DERIVES FROM THE DECISION ALLOWING ENFORCEMENT AND THEREFORE THAT A SECOND DECISION , WHICH COULD NOT IN ANY EVENT UNDERMINE THAT RIGHT , WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED .
26 IT MUST THEREFORE BE STATED IN REPLY TO THE SECOND QUESTION SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL COURT THAT BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 39 OF THE CONVENTION A PARTY WHO HAS APPLIED FOR AND OBTAINED AUTHORIZATION FOR ENFORCEMENT MAY , BY VIRTUE OF THAT ARTICLE AND DURING THE PERIOD MENTIONED THEREIN , PROCEED DIRECTLY WITH PROTECTIVE MEASURES AGAINST THE PROPERTY OF THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM ENFORCEMENT IS SOUGHT AND IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO OBTAIN SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION .
THE PERIOD DURING WHICH MEASURES OF ENFORCEMENT MAY BE TAKEN
27 IN ITS THIRD QUESTION , THE NATIONAL COURT ASKS WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE MEASURES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 39 ARE SUBJECT TO THE RULE EMBODIED IN ITS NATIONAL LAW WHEREBY A PROTECTIVE MEASURE MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN A NON-EXTENDABLE