- 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-946/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 27 December 2019 – MG v HH
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CN0946
62019CN0946
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 68/36
—
(Case C-946/19)
(2020/C 68/39)
Language of the case: English
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: MG
Respondent: HH
Questions referred
1.Does Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast) confer a directly enforceable right upon a person domiciled in a Member State?
If it does:
a)Where such a right is breached by the bringing of proceedings against that person in a third State, is there an obligation upon the Member State to provide a remedy, including by the grant of an anti-suit injunction?
b)Does any such obligation extend to a case where a cause of action available in the courts of a third State is not available under the law applicable in the courts of the Member State?
—
(1) Regulation (EU) 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 (OJ 2012, L 351, p. 1).