CELEX: 62020CN0568
Language: en
Date: 2020-11-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-568/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 2 November 2020 — J v H Limited

25.1.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 28/23
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 2 November 2020 — J v H Limited
      (Case C-568/20)
      (2021/C 28/37)
      Language of the case: German
      
         Referring court
      
      Oberster Gerichtshof
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Appellant: J
      
         Respondent: H Limited
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Are the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Regulation No 1215/2012’) (1), in particular Article 2(a) and Article 39, to be interpreted as meaning that a judgment that is to be enforced exists even if, in a Member State, the judgment debtor is obliged, after summary examination in adversarial proceedings, albeit relating only to the binding nature of the force of res judicata of a judgment given against him in a third State, to pay to the party who was successful in the third State proceedings the debt that was judicially recognised in the third State, when the subject matter of the proceedings in the Member State was limited to examination of the existence of a claim derived from the judicially recognised debt against the judgment debtor?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  If question 1 is answered in the negative:
                  Are the provisions of Regulation No 1215/2012, in particular Articles 1, 2(a), 39, 45, 46 and 52, to be interpreted as meaning that, irrespective of the existence of one of the grounds set out in Article 45 of Regulation No 1215/2012, enforcement must be refused if the judgment under review is not a judgment within the meaning of Article 2(a) or Article 39 of Regulation No 1215/2012 or the application in the Member State of origin on which the judgment is based does not fall within the scope of Regulation No 1215/2012?
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  If the first question is answered in the negative and the second question in the affirmative:
                  Are the provisions of Regulation No 1215/2012, in particular Articles 1, 2(a), 39, 42(1)(b), 46 and 53, to be interpreted as meaning that, in proceedings concerning an application for refusal of enforcement, the court of the Member State addressed is compelled to assume, on the basis solely of the information provided by the court of origin in the certificate issued pursuant to Article 53 of Regulation No 1215/2012, that a judgment that falls within the scope of the regulation and is to be enforced exists?
               
            
         (1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.