CELEX: 62019CN0200
Language: en
Date: 2019-03-01 00:00:00
Title: Case C-200/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Trgovački sud u Zagreb (Croatia) made on 1 March 2019 — INA-INDUSTRIJA NAFTE d.d. and Others v LUBJANSKA BANKA d.d.

13.5.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 164/31
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Trgovački sud u Zagreb (Croatia) made on 1 March 2019 — INA-INDUSTRIJA NAFTE d.d. and Others v LUBJANSKA BANKA d.d.
      (Case C-200/19)
      (2019/C 164/34)
      Language of the case: Croatian
      
         Referring court
      
      Trgovački sud u Zagreb
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicants: INA-INDUSTRIJA NAFTE d.d., CROATIA osiguranje d.d., REPUBLIKA HRVATSKA, Croatia Airlines d.d., GRAD ZAGREB, HRVATSKA ELEKTROPRIVREDA d.d., HRVATSKE ŠUME d.o.o., KAPITAL d.o.o. u stečaju, PETROKEMIJA d.d., Đuro Đaković Holding d.d., ENERGOINVEST d.d., TELENERG d.o.o., ENERGOCONTROL d.o.o., UDRUGA POSLODAVACA U ZDRAVSTVU, HRVATSKI ZAVOD ZA MIROVINSKO OSIGURANJE, ZAGREBPČANKA-POSLOVNI OBJEKTI d.d., BRODOGRADILIŠTE VIKTOR LENAC d.d., INOVINE d.d., MARAT INŽENJERING d.o.o., GOYA — COMPANY d.o.o., METROPOLIS PLAN d.o.o., Dalekovod d.d., INFRATERRA d.o.o., Citat d.o.o., STAROSTA d.o.o., METALKA METALCOM d.o.o., I.Š, B.C., Z.N., D.G., M.R., A.T.
      
         Defendant: LUBJANSKA BANKA d.d.
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Bearing in mind that the defendant neither participated in the conclusion of the agreements with the other co-owners nor consented to that which was agreed, must Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 be interpreted as meaning that the defendant’s obligation — which is established by law but which, as regards the amount, final date for payment and other details, is determined by common agreement by the owners who represent more than half of the shares in the joint ownership of the building — must be regarded as a contractual obligation?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Must Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 be interpreted as meaning that the failure to perform an obligation established by law with regard to the other co-owners of the building, who may seek performance of that obligation by judicial means, should be regarded as a tort, delict or quasi-delict, particularly having regard to the fact that the defendant’s failure to perform a legal obligation can give rise to additional harm (aside from the financial loss from the reserve fund) both for the other co-owners and for third parties?
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Taking into consideration that, in the present case, the obligation in question arises from the fact that the defendant is the owner of commercial premises in which it carries out activities, namely, premises in which a branch is situated, must Article 7(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 be interpreted as meaning that this is a dispute relating to the operation of branches, agencies or any other establishment?