CELEX: 62021CN0590
Language: en
Date: 2021-09-23 00:00:00
Title: Case C-590/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Areios Pagos (Greece) lodged on 23 September 2021 — Charles Taylor Adjusting Limited, FD v Starlight Shipping Company, Overseas Marine Enterprises INC

24.1.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 37/9
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Areios Pagos (Greece) lodged on 23 September 2021 — Charles Taylor Adjusting Limited, FD v Starlight Shipping Company, Overseas Marine Enterprises INC
      (Case C-590/21)
      (2022/C 37/14)
      Language of the case: Greek
      
         Referring court
      
      Areios Pagos
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Appellants:
      
      Charles Taylor Adjusting Limited,
      FD
      
         Respondents:
      
      Starlight Shipping Company,
      Overseas Marine Enterprises INC
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Is the expression ‘manifestly contrary to public policy’ in the EU and, by extension, to domestic public policy, which constitutes a ground for non-recognition and non-enforcement pursuant to point 1 of Article 34 and Article 45(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, (1) to be understood as meaning that it extends beyond explicit anti-suit injunctions prohibiting the commencement and continuation of proceedings before a court of another Member State to judgments or orders delivered by courts of Member States where: (i) they impede or prevent the claimant in obtaining judicial protection by the court of another Member State or from continuing proceedings already commenced before it; and (ii) is that form of interference in the jurisdiction of a court of another Member State to adjudicate a dispute of which it has already been seised, and which it has admitted, compatible with public policy in the EU? In particular, is it contrary to public policy in the EU within the meaning of point 1 of Article 34 and Article 45(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, to recognise and/or declare enforceable a judgment or order of a court of a Member State awarding provisional damages to claimants seeking recognition and a declaration of enforceability in respect of the costs and expenses incurred by them in bringing an action or continuing proceedings before the court of another Member State, where the reasons given are that: (a) it follows from an examination of that action that the case is covered by a settlement duly established and ratified by the court of the Member State delivering the judgment (or order); and (b) the court of the other Member State seised in a fresh action by the party against which the judgment or order was delivered lacks jurisdiction by virtue of a clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  If the first question is answered in the negative, is point 1 of Article 34 of Regulation No 44/2001, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union, to be understood as constituting a ground for non-recognition and non-enforcement in Greece of the judgment and orders delivered by a court of another Member State (the United Kingdom), as described under (I) above, where they are directly and manifestly contrary to national public policy in accordance with fundamental social and legal perceptions which prevail in Greece and the fundamental provisions of Greek law that lie at the very heart of the right to judicial protection (Articles 8 and 20 of the Greek Constitution, Article 33 of the Greek Civil Code and the principle of protection of that right that underpins the entire system of Greek procedural law, as laid down in Articles 176, 173(1) to (3), 185, 205 and 191 of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure cited in paragraph 6 of the statement of reasons) and Article 6(1) of the [European Convention on Human Rights], such that, in that case, it is permissible to disapply the principle of EU law on the free movement of judgments, and is the non-recognition resulting therefrom compatible with the views that assimilate and promote the European perspective?
               
            
         (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).