- 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-560/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 4 November 2016 — Michael Dědouch and Others v Jihočeská plynárenská, a.s., E.ON Czech Holding AG
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016CN0560
62016CN0560
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
23.1.2017
Official Journal of the European Union
C 22/12
(Case C-560/16)
(2017/C 022/17)
Language of the case: Czech
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Michael Dědouch, MUDr. Petr Streitberg, Pavel Suda
Defendants: Jihočeská plynárenská, a.s., E.ON Czech Holding AG
Questions referred
1.Must Article 22(2) 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 (‘the Brussels I Regulation’) be interpreted as also covering proceedings for the review of the reasonableness of the consideration which a majority shareholder is required to provide, as equivalent value for participating securities, to the previous owners of participating securities which were transferred to it as a result of a decision at a general meeting of a public limited company on the compulsory transfer of the other participating securities to that majority shareholder (otherwise known as a ‘squeeze out’), where the resolution adopted at the general meeting of the public limited company determines the amount of the reasonable consideration and where there is a court decision granting entitlement to a different amount of consideration which is binding on the majority shareholder and on the company as regards the basis of the right granted, as well as vis-à-vis the other owners of the participating securities?
2.If the answer to the preceding question is [in the] negative, must Article 5(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation be interpreted as also covering proceedings for review of the reasonableness of the consideration described in the previous question?
3.If the answer to both the preceding questions is in the negative, must Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation be interpreted as also covering proceedings for review of the reasonableness of the consideration described in the first question?
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).