- 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-581/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 5 November 2020 — Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO S.p.A — Costruzioni Generali, Vianini Lavori S.p.A
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CN0581
62020CN0581
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
25.1.2021
Official Journal of the European Union
C 28/27
(Case C-581/20)
(2021/C 28/43)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad
Respondent: TOTO S.p.A — Costruzioni Generali, Vianini Lavori S.p.A
Questions referred
1.Is Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/12 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as meaning that a case such as that described in this order for reference must be regarded in whole or in part as a civil or commercial matter within the meaning of Article 1(1) of that regulation?
2.After the right to make an application for provisional/protective measures has been exercised and the court having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter has already ruled on that application, is the court seised of an application for interim relief on the same basis and under Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/12 of the European Parliament and of the Council to be regarded as not having jurisdiction from the point at which evidence is produced that the court having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter has given a ruling on that application?
3.If it follows from the answers to the first two questions referred that the court seised of an application under Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/12 of the European Parliament and of the Council has jurisdiction, must the conditions for the ordering of protective measures under Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/12 of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted independently? Should a provision which does not allow a protective measure to be ordered against a public body in a case such as the present one be disapplied?
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 (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).
* * *
Language of the case: Bulgarian