CELEX: 62008CN0133
Language: en
Date: 2008-04-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-133/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 2 April 2008 — Intercontainer Interfrigo (ICF) SC v Balkenende Oosthuizen BV and MIC Operations BV

21.6.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 158/10
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 2 April 2008 — Intercontainer Interfrigo (ICF) SC v Balkenende Oosthuizen BV and MIC Operations BV
   (Case C-133/08)
   (2008/C 158/15)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Appellant: Intercontainer Interfrigo (ICF) SC
   
      Respondents: Balkenende Oosthuizen BV and MIC Operations BV
   Questions referred
   
               (a)
            
            
               Must Article 4(4) of the 1980 Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations (1) be construed as meaning that it relates only to voyage charter parties and that other forms of charter party fall outside the scope of that provision?
            
         
               (b)
            
            
               If Question (a) is answered in the affirmative, must Article 4(4) of the 1980 Convention then be construed as meaning that, in so far as other forms of charter party also relate to the carriage of goods, the contract in question comes, so far as that carriage is concerned, within the scope of that provision and the applicable law is for the rest determined by Article 4(2) of the 1980 Convention?
            
         
               (c)
            
            
               If Question (b) is answered in the affirmative, which of the two legal bases indicated should be used as the basis for examining a contention that the legal claims based on the contract are time-barred?
            
         
               (d)
            
            
               If the predominant aspect of the contract relates to the carriage of goods, should the division referred to in Question (b) not be taken into account and must then the law applicable to all constituent parts of the contract be determined pursuant to Article 4(4) of the 1980 Convention?
               With regard to the ground set out in 3.6.(ii) above:
            
         
               (e)
            
            
               Must the exception in the second clause of Article 4(5) of the 1980 Convention be interpreted in such a way that the presumptions in Article 4(2), (3) and (4) of the 1980 Convention do not apply only if it is evident from the circumstances in their totality that the connecting criteria indicated therein do not have any genuine connecting value, or indeed if it is clear therefrom that there is a stronger connection with some other country?
            
         
      (1)  Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980.