CELEX: 62014CA0559
Language: en
Date: 2016-05-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-559/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas — Latvia) — Rūdolfs Meroni v Recoletos Limited (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Recognition and enforcement of provisional and protective measures — Concept of ‘public policy’)

18.7.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 260/4
            
         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas — Latvia) — Rūdolfs Meroni v Recoletos Limited
   (Case C-559/14) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Recognition and enforcement of provisional and protective measures - Concept of ‘public policy’))
   (2016/C 260/05)
   Language of the case: Latvian
   
      Referring court
   
   Augstākās tiesas
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Rūdolfs Meroni
   
      Defendant: Recoletos Limited
   
      Third parties: Aivars Lembergs, Olafs Berķis, Igors Skoks, Genādijs Ševcovs
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   Article 34(1) 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, considered in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the recognition and enforcement of an order issued by a court of a Member State, without a prior hearing of a third person whose rights may be affected by that order, cannot be regarded as manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State in which enforcement is sought or manifestly contrary to the right to a fair trial within the meaning of those provisions, in so far as that third person is entitled to assert his rights before that court.
   
      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.