- 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-722/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Villach — Austria) — Norbert Reitbauer and Others v Enrico Casamassima (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Exclusive jurisdiction — Article 24(1) and (5) — Actions concerning rights in rem in immovable property and enforcement of judgments — Judicially ordered auction of a property — Opposition proceedings regarding the distribution of the proceeds from that auction)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CA0722
62017CA0722
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 305/10
(Case C-722/17) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Exclusive jurisdiction - Article 24(1) and (5) - Actions concerning rights in rem in immovable property and enforcement of judgments - Judicially ordered auction of a property - Opposition proceedings regarding the distribution of the proceeds from that auction)
(2019/C 305/12)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Norbert Reitbauer, Dolinschek GmbH, B.T.S. Trendfloor Raumausstattungs-GmbH, Elektrounternehmen K. Maschke GmbH, Klaus Egger, Architekt DI Klaus Egger Ziviltechniker GmbH
Defendant: Enrico Casamassima
Operative part of the judgment
Article 24(1) and (5) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that an action brought by a pledgee challenging the distribution of the proceeds from a judicially ordered auction of a property and seeking, first, the finding that a competing debt has been extinguished by reason of a financial settlement and, second, that the pledge guaranteeing enforcement of that latter debt is unenforceable, does not come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State where the property is situated or of the courts of the place of enforcement.
(*) Language of the case: German.