- 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-139/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Prism Investments BV v J.A. van der Meer, in his capacity as receiver in the liquidation of Arilco Holland BV (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Enforcement — Grounds for refusing enforcement — Compliance, in the State in which it was delivered, with the judgment in respect of which the declaration of enforceability is sought)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010CA0139
62010CA0139
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 355/5
(Case C-139/10) (<span class="super">1</span>)
(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Enforcement - Grounds for refusing enforcement - Compliance, in the State in which it was delivered, with the judgment in respect of which the declaration of enforceability is sought)
2011/C 355/07
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Prism Investments BV
Respondent: J.A. van der Meer, in his capacity as receiver in the liquidation of Arilco Holland BV
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 34, 35, 43, 44 and 45 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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Grounds for refusal — Exhaustive list — Performance of the obligation under the national judgment which is the subject of the application for a declaration of enforceability
Operative part of the judgment
Article 45 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 must be interpreted as precluding the court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 43 or Article 44 of that regulation from refusing or revoking a declaration of enforceability of a judgment on a ground other than those set out in Articles 34 and 35 thereof, such as compliance with that judgment in the Member State of origin.
* * *
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 134, 22.05.2010.
Language of the case: Dutch