CELEX: C2005/006/22
Language: en
Date: 2005-01-08 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 October 2004 in Case C-148/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München): Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs AG v Portbridge Transport International BV (Brussels Convention — Articles 20 and 57(2) — Failure by the defendant to enter an appearance — Defendant domiciled in another Contracting State — Geneva Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road — Conflict between conventions)

8.1.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 6/13
            
         
      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   
   (Third Chamber)
   of 28 October 2004
   in Case C-148/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München): Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs AG v Portbridge Transport International BV (1)
   
   (Brussels Convention - Articles 20 and 57(2) - Failure by the defendant to enter an appearance - Defendant domiciled in another Contracting State - Geneva Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road - Conflict between conventions)
   (2005/C 6/22)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-148/03: reference for a preliminary ruling pursuant to the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, made by the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany), by decision of 27 March 2003, received at the Court on 31 March 2003, in the proceedings between Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs AG and Portbridge Transport International BV — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 October 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 57(2)(a) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, should be interpreted as meaning that the court of a Contracting State in which a defendant domiciled in another Contracting State is sued may derive its jurisdiction from a specialised convention to which the first State is a party as well and which contains specific rules on jurisdiction, even where the defendant, in the course of the proceedings in question, submits no pleas on the merits.
   
      (1)   OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.