CELEX: 62016CA0029
Language: en
Date: 2017-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-29/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stralsund — Germany) — HanseYachts AG v Port D’Hiver Yachting SARL, Société Maritime Côte D’Azur, Compagnie Generali IARD SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 27 — Lis pendens — Court first seised — Point 1 of Article 30 — Concept of ‘document instituting the proceedings’ or ‘equivalent document’ — Application for proceedings to preserve or establish, prior to any legal proceedings, evidence of facts on which a subsequent action could be based)

3.7.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 213/12
            
         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stralsund — Germany) — HanseYachts AG v Port D’Hiver Yachting SARL, Société Maritime Côte D’Azur, Compagnie Generali IARD SA
   (Case C-29/16) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 27 - Lis pendens - Court first seised - Point 1 of Article 30 - Concept of ‘document instituting the proceedings’ or ‘equivalent document’ - Application for proceedings to preserve or establish, prior to any legal proceedings, evidence of facts on which a subsequent action could be based))
   (2017/C 213/12)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Landgericht Stralsund
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: HanseYachts AG
   
      Defendants: Port D’Hiver Yachting SARL, Société Maritime Côte D’Azur, Compagnie Generali IARD SA
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   Article 27(1) and point 1 of Article 30 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 must be interpreted as meaning, in cases of lis pendens, that the date on which a procedure for a measure of inquiry prior to any legal proceedings was commenced cannot constitute the date on which, within the meaning of point 1 of Article 30 of that regulation, a court called upon to rule on a substantive application which was brought in the same Member State following the result of that measure was ‘deemed to be seised’.
   
      (1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.