CELEX: 62018CN0433
Language: en
Date: 2018-07-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-433/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 2 July 2018 — ML v OÜ Aktiva Finants

1.10.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 352/18
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 2 July 2018 — ML v OÜ Aktiva Finants
      (Case C-433/18)
      (2018/C 352/23)
      Language of the case: Finnish
      
         Referring court
      
      Korkein oikeus
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: ML
      
         Defendant: OÜ Aktiva Finants
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Is the procedure for granting leave for further consideration which is part of the national system of appeals compatible with the effective rights of appeal that are guaranteed for both parties in Article 43(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 (1) where an appeal is lodged against the decision of a district court which relates to the recognition or enforcement of a judgment under Regulation No 44/2001?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  In the procedure for granting leave for further consideration, are the requirements in relation to a procedure in contradictory matters within the meaning of Article 43(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 satisfied if the respondent is not heard in relation to the appeal before the decision on leave is taken? Are they satisfied if the respondent is heard before the decision on leave for further consideration is taken?
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Does the fact that the appellant may be not only the party who has applied for enforcement and whose application has been refused, but also the party against whom enforcement has been applied for when that application has been allowed, have any significance for the above interpretation?
               
            
         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).