CELEX: 62011CN0054
Language: en
Date: 2011-02-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-54/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 7 February 2011 — JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Frankfurt Branch, J.P. Morgan Securities Limited v Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG) Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts

16.4.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 120/4
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 7 February 2011 — JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Frankfurt Branch, J.P. Morgan Securities Limited v Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG) Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts
   (Case C-54/11)
   2011/C 120/07
   Language of the case: English
   
      Referring court
   
   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Frankfurt Branch, J.P. Morgan Securities Limited
   
      Defendant: Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG) Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               When identifying, for the purposes of Articles 22(2) and 25 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (1) (the ‘Brussels I Regulation’) what proceedings have as their object and with what they are principally concerned, should the national court only have regard to the claims made by the claimant(s) or should it also have regard to any defences or arguments raised by the defendants?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               If a party raises an issue in proceedings which falls within the subject matter of Article 22(2) of the Brussels I Regulation, such as an issue as to the validity of the decision of an organ of a company or other legal person, does it necessarily follow that that issue forms the object of the proceedings and that the proceedings are principally concerned with that issue if that issue may be potentially dispositive of the proceedings, irrespective of the nature and number of other issues raised in the proceedings and of whether all or some of those issues are also potentially dispositive?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               If the answer to question (2) above is negative, is the national court required, in order to identify the object of the proceedings and the issue with which the proceedings are principally concerned, to consider the proceedings overall and form an overall judgment of their object and what they are principally concerned with; and if not, what test should the national court apply to identify these matters?
            
         
      (1)  OJ L 12, p. 1