CELEX: 62015CA0185
Language: en
Date: 2016-10-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-185/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — Marjan Kostanjevec v F&S Leasing GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 6(3) — Definition of ‘counterclaim’ — Claim based on unjust enrichment — Payment of a sum due under a decision that has been set aside — Temporal application)

12.12.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 462/4
            
         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — Marjan Kostanjevec v F&S Leasing GmbH
   (Case C-185/15) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 6(3) - Definition of ‘counterclaim’ - Claim based on unjust enrichment - Payment of a sum due under a decision that has been set aside - Temporal application))
   (2016/C 462/05)
   Language of the case: Slovene
   
      Referring court
   
   Vrhovno sodišče
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Marjan Kostanjevec
   
      Defendant: F&S Leasing GmbH
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   Article 6(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the court designated by that provision as regards counterclaims has jurisdiction to hear a counterclaim seeking the reimbursement on the ground of unjust enrichment of a sum corresponding to the amount agreed in an extrajudicial settlement, where that claim is brought in fresh legal proceedings between the same parties, following the setting aside of the judgment delivered in the original proceedings between them, the enforcement of which gave rise to the extrajudicial settlement.
   
      (1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.