Judgement of the Court; 9 December 2003; in Case C-116/02; Erich Gasser GmbH and MISAT Srl
1. A national court may, under the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, refer to the Court of Justice a request for interpretation of the Brussels Convention, even where it relies on the submissions of a party to the main proceedings of which it has not yet examined the merits, provided that it considers, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, that a preliminary ruling is necessary to enable it to give judgment and that the questions on which it seeks a ruling from the Court are relevant. It is nevertheless incumbent on the national court to provide the Court of Justice with factual and legal information enabling it to give a useful interpretation of the Convention and to explain why it considers that a reply to its questions is necessary to enable it to give judgment.
2. Article 21 of the Brussels Convention must be interpreted as meaning that a court second seised whose jurisdiction has been claimed under an agreement conferring jurisdiction must nevertheless stay proceedings until the court first seised has declared that it has no jurisdiction.
3. Article 21 of the Brussels Convention must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be derogated from where, in general, the duration of proceedings before the courts of the Contracting State in which the court first seised is established is excessively long.
- Reforma dokaznega prava v digitalni dobi
- Raznolikost izvršilnih naslovov pri čezmejni izterjavi dolgov v EU
- Train to Enforce
- Pravna sredstva v zvezi z izvrševanjem tujih sodnih odločb po Bruselj Ia (prenovitev)
- LAWTrain
- Razvoj in trendi v pravni ureditvi odvetništva v Sloveniji in Nemčiji
- Kontinentalno pravo proti "Common law" - presoja "pravil" dokaznega prava (testiranje dopustnosti elektronskih dokazov v anglosaškem in kontinentalnem pravnem sistemu)
- Razsežnosti dokazovanja v evropskem civilnem postopku
- Poenostavljena izterjava denarnih obveznosti v EU
- Vloga Pravne fakultete
- Konference in ostale aktivnosti
- Rezultati projekta
- Council regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
- Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003
- Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001
- Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000
- Brussels Regulation
- Brussels Convention
- Protocol on the interpretation of the Brussels Convention
- Brussels Convention
- Article 1
- Article 2
- Article 3
- Article 5 no. 1
- Article 5 no. 2
- Article 5 no. 3
- Article 5 no. 5
- Article 6
- Article 7
- Article 12
- Article 13
- Article 16 no. 1
- Article 16 no. 4
- Article 16 no. 5
- Article 17
- Article 18
- Article 19
- Article 21
- Judgment of the Court; 7 June 1984; Siegfried Zelger v Sebastiano Salinitri; in Case 129/83
- Judgment of the Court; 8 December 1987; Gubisch Maschinenfabrik KG v Giulio Palumbo; in Case 144/86
- Judgment of the Court; 27 June 1991; Overseas Union Insurance Ltd and Deutsche Ruck Uk Reinsurance Ltd and Pine Top Insurance Company Ltd v New Hampshire Insurance Company; in Case C-351/89
- Judgment of the Court; 20 January 1994; Owens Bank Ltd v Fulvio Bracco and Bracco Industria Chimica SpA; in Case C-129/92
- Judgment of the Court; 10 February 1994; Mund & Fester v Hatrex Internationaal Transport; in Case C-398/92
- Judgment of the Court; 6 December 1994; The owners of the cargo lately laden on board the ship "Tatry" v the owners of the ship "Maciej Rataj; in Case C-406/92
- Judgment of the Court; 9 October 1997; Elsbeth Freifrau von Horn v Kevin Cinnamond; in Case C-163/95
- Judgment of the Court; 19 May 1998; Drouot assurances SA v Consolidated metallurgical industries (CMI industrial sites), Protea assurance and Groupement d'intérêt économique (GIE) Réunion européenne; in Case C-351/96
- Judgement of the Court; 8 May 2003; in Case C-111/01, Gantner Electronic GmbH and Basch Exploitatie Maatschappij BV
- Judgement of the Court; 9 December 2003; in Case C-116/02; Erich Gasser GmbH and MISAT Srl
- Judgement of the Court; 27 April 2004; in Case C-159/02, Gregory Paul Turner and Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit, Harada Ltd, Changepoint SA
- Judgement of the Court; 14 October 2004; in Case C-39/02, Mærsk Olie & Gas A/S and Firma M. de Haan en W. de Boer
- Article 22
- Article 23
- Article 24
- Article 25
- Article 26
- Article 27 no. 1
- Article 27 no. 2
- Article 27 no. 3
- Article 30
- Article 31
- Article 33
- Article 36
- Article 37
- Article 38
- Article 39
- Article 40
- Article 46
- Article 47
- Article 50
- Article 52
- Article 54
- Article 55
- Article 56
- Article 57
- Brussels Regulation
- Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001
- Council regulation (EC) No 1348/2000
- Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003
- Council regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
- Evropski izvršilni naslov
- Medicina, pravo in družba
- CRP Vročanje