- 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-559/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas — Latvia) — Rūdolfs Meroni v Recoletos Limited (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Recognition and enforcement of provisional and protective measures — Concept of ‘public policy’)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CA0559
62014CA0559
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
18.7.2016
Official Journal of the European Union
C 260/4
(Case C-559/14) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Recognition and enforcement of provisional and protective measures - Concept of ‘public policy’))
(2016/C 260/05)
Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Rūdolfs Meroni
Defendant: Recoletos Limited
Third parties: Aivars Lembergs, Olafs Berķis, Igors Skoks, Genādijs Ševcovs
Operative part of the judgment
Article 34(1) 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, considered in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the recognition and enforcement of an order issued by a court of a Member State, without a prior hearing of a third person whose rights may be affected by that order, cannot be regarded as manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State in which enforcement is sought or manifestly contrary to the right to a fair trial within the meaning of those provisions, in so far as that third person is entitled to assert his rights before that court.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.