- 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-523/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland — Netherlands) — Aannemingsbedrijf Aertssen NV, Aertssen Terrassements SA v VSB Machineverhuur BV, Van Sommeren Bestrating BV, Jos van Sommeren (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 1 — Scope — Complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings — Article 27 — Lis pendens — Proceedings brought before a court of another Member State — Ongoing judicial investigation — Article 30 — Time when a court is deemed to be seised)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CA0523
62014CA0523
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 414/10
(Case C-523/14) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 1 - Scope - Complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings - Article 27 - Lis pendens - Proceedings brought before a court of another Member State - Ongoing judicial investigation - Article 30 - Time when a court is deemed to be seised))
(2015/C 414/13)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Aannemingsbedrijf Aertssen NV, Aertssen Terrassements SA
Defendants: VSB Machineverhuur BV, Van Sommeren Bestrating BV, Jos van Sommeren
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 1 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 meaning that a complaint lodged with an investigating magistrate seeking to join a civil action to proceedings falls within the scope of that regulation in so far as its object is to obtain monetary compensation for harm allegedly suffered by the complainant.
2.Article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that proceedings are brought, within the meaning of that provision, when a complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings has been lodged with an investigating magistrate, even though the judicial investigation of the case at issue has not yet been closed.
3.Article 30 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a person lodges a complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings with an investigating magistrate by means of the lodging of a document which need not, under the applicable national law, be served before that lodging, the time which must be chosen for the purposes of holding that magistrate to be seised is the time when that complaint was lodged.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.