- 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-682/23, E.B.SP.: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 15 November 2023 — E. B.SP. Z. O. O. v K. P.SP. Z. O. O.
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023CN0682
62023CN0682
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
EN
Series C
C/2024/2007
18.3.2024
(C/2024/2007)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: E. B.SP. Z. O. O.
Defendants: K. P.SP. Z. O. O.
Questions referred
1.Can Article 25 of Regulation 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 (1) be interpreted as conferring on the assignee of a claim arising from a contract the right to enforce the jurisdiction clause in that contract against the original party to the contract, if the assignment contract has, in accordance with the national law applicable to the substance of the dispute, transferred the claim and its ancillary rights, but not the obligations arising from the contract?
2.In a case such as the one described above, is the opposition of the party that agreed to the jurisdiction clause, against whom the action is brought, relevant for the purpose of determining which court has jurisdiction? In addition, is a new consensus required from that party, prior to or concomitant with bringing a legal action, in order for the third-party assignee to be entitled to rely on the jurisdiction clause?
(1) OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2007/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
* * *
Language of the case: Romanian.