CELEX: 62010CN0144
Language: en
Date: 2010-03-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-144/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2010 — Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts v JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Frankfurt Branch

5.6.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 148/17
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2010 — Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts v JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Frankfurt Branch
   (Case C-144/10)
   2010/C 148/26
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Kammergericht Berlin
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts
   
      Defendant: JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Frankfurt Branch
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Does the scope of Article 22(2) 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 (1) also extend to proceedings in which a company or legal person objects, with regard to a claim made against it stemming from a legal transaction, that decisions of its organs which led to the conclusion of the legal transaction are ineffective as a result of infringements of its articles of association?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               If the question under (1) is answered in the affirmative, is Article 22(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 also applicable to legal persons governed by public law in so far as the effectiveness of the decisions of its organs are subject to review by civil courts?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               If the question under (2) is answered in the affirmative, is the court of the Member State last seised in legal proceedings required to stay the proceedings pursuant to Article 27 of Regulation No 44/2001 even if it is claimed that, as a result of a decision of the organs of one of the parties which is ineffective under its articles of association, an agreement conferring jurisdiction is likewise ineffective?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.