- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
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.
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CN0200
62019CN0200
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
13.5.2019
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 164/31
(Case C-200/19)
(2019/C 164/34)
Language of the case: Croatian
Referring court
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?