- 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-559/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 5 December 2014 — Rūdolfs Meroni v Recoletos Limited
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CN0559
62014CN0559
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
16.3.2015
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 89/2
(Case C-559/14)
(2015/C 089/02)
Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Rūdolfs Meroni
Defendant: Recoletos Limited
Questions referred
1.Must Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Regulation be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of proceedings for the recognition of a foreign judgment, infringement of the rights of persons who are not parties to the main proceedings may constitute grounds for applying the public policy clause contained in Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Regulation and for refusing to recognise the foreign judgment in so far as it affects persons who are not parties to the main proceedings?
2.If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 47 of the Charter be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the right to a fair trial set out therein allows proceedings for the adoption of provisional protective measures to limit the economic rights of a person who has not been a party to the proceedings, if provision is made to the effect that any person who is affected by the decision on the provisional protective measures is to have the right at any time to request the court to vary or discharge the judgment, in a situation in which it is left to the applicants to notify the decision to the persons concerned?