- 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-170/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 7 April 2011 — Maurice Robert Josse Marie Ghislain Lippens and Others v Hendrikus Cornelis Kortekaas and Others, other party: Ageas NV, previously Fortis N.V
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011CN0170
62011CN0170
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
18.6.2011
Official Journal of the European Union
C 179/12
(Case C-170/11)
2011/C 179/22
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants:
Gilbert Georges Henri Mittler
Jean Paul François Caroline Votron
Defendants:
Kortekaas Entertainment Marketing B.V.
Kortekaas Pensioen B.V.
Dirk Robbard De Kat
Johannes Hendrikus Visch
Euphemia Joanna Bökkerink
Laminco Gld N-A
Question referred
Must the EC Evidence Regulation, in particular Article 1(1) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that a judge wishing to hear a witness who resides in another Member State must always, for that form of the taking of evidence, use the methods put in place by the EC Evidence Regulation, or does he have the power to use the methods provided by his own national procedural law such as summoning the witness to appear before him?
*
Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 174, p.1).