Warning: include(/home/ethemis/public_html/global_subsite_functions.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/ethemis/public_html/savigny/wp-content/themes/gonzo/functions.php on line 3

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/ethemis/public_html/global_subsite_functions.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/ethemis/public_html/savigny/wp-content/themes/gonzo/functions.php on line 3
Savigny | Private International Law Blog full screen background image

Events

29 April 2017 - Summer School on European Business Law, Corfu 2017, 24-28 Ιουλίου Το “Summer School” αποτε ... +++ 3 May 2016 - Εκδηλώσεις Τομέα Διεθνών Σπουδών – Κατεύθυνση Ι.Δ.Δ. ΑΝΑΚΟΙΝΩΣΗ Ο Καθηγ ... +++ 30 April 2016 - 9.5.2016: Ημερίδα – Το Πρόσωπο και η Οικογένεια στο Δίκαιο και την Κοινωνία   Το Ελληνικό Τμή ... +++ 30 March 2016 - 14th ICC Miami Conference on International Arbitration This conference provides an indispe ... +++ 29 March 2016 - ICC Japan Arbitration Week The ICC Japan Arbitration week, 26- ... +++ 28 March 2016 - 2nd ICC Asia Conference on International Arbitration The conference will offer a line-up ... +++

*PIL Case Law

Published on December 20th, 2016 | by Olga Papadopoulou

0

CJEU, C‑185/15, Reg. 44/2001, Art. 6(3), Definition of ‘counterclaim’, Claim based on unjust enrichment

C185/15,

Marjan Kostanjevec   v   F&S Leasing GmbH,

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber), 12 October 2016 (*)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 6(3) — Definition of ‘counterclaim’ — Claim based on unjust enrichment — Payment of a sum due under a decision that has been set aside — Temporal application)

In those circumstances, the Vrhovno sodišče (Supreme Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1)      Must the term “counterclaim” within the meaning of Article 6(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as extending also to a claim brought as a counterclaim in accordance with national law after, in proceedings on an appeal on a point of law, a judgment delivered in proceedings on the defendant’s original claim that had become final and enforceable was set aside and the case referred back to the court of first instance for rehearing, where the applicant, in his counterclaim alleging unjust enrichment, seeks reimbursement of the amount which he was obliged to pay on the basis of the judgment delivered in the proceedings on the defendant’s original claim and set aside?

(2)      Must the expression “matters relating to a contract concluded by a person, the consumer” in Article 15(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as extending to a situation in which the consumer brings an action, in which he pursues a claim alleging unjust enrichment, by way of counterclaim for the purposes of national law, linked to the original claim, which however relates to a case concerning a consumer contract within the meaning of that provision of Regulation No 44/2001, and in which the consumer-applicant seeks reimbursement of the amount he was obliged to pay by a judgment (subsequently) set aside, delivered in proceedings on the defendant’s original claim, and thus reimbursement of an amount arising from a case concerning a consumer contract?

(3)      If, in the case described above, jurisdiction cannot be based either on the jurisdictional rules for counterclaims or on the jurisdictional rules for consumer contracts:

(a)      Must the term “matters relating to a contract” in Article 5(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as extending to an action in which the applicant pursues a claim alleging unjust enrichment, but that is brought as a counterclaim under national law, linked to the defendant’s original claim which relates to the contractual relationship between the parties, where the purpose of the claim alleging unjust enrichment is to obtain reimbursement of the amount the applicant was obliged to pay by a judgment (subsequently) set aside, delivered in proceedings on the defendant’s original claim, and thus reimbursement of an amount arising from a contractual case?

If the foregoing question can be answered in the affirmative:

(b)      In the case described above, must jurisdiction based on the place of performance within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 be examined on the basis of the rules governing the performance of obligations deriving from a claim alleging unjust enrichment?’

On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 6(3) 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 the court designated by that provision as regards counterclaims has jurisdiction to hear a counterclaim seeking the reimbursement on the ground of unjust enrichment of a sum corresponding to the amount agreed in an extrajudicial settlement, where that claim is brought in fresh legal proceedings between the same parties, following the setting aside of the judgment delivered in the original proceedings between them, the enforcement of which gave rise to the extrajudicial settlement.

Read the full decision, here…





About the Author


Back to Top ↑
  • Books

    Το διαζύγιο και οι συνέπειές του στις οικογενειακές έννομες σχέσεις

    Επιμέλεια: Γεώργιος-Αλέξανδρος Γεωργιάδης

    Συγγραφείς: Άνθιμος Απόστολος Μ., Γεωργιάδης Γεώργιος-Αλέξανδρος,Γιαννόπουλος Παναγιώτης, Γκότοβου Χρυσαυγή, Θανασούλη Θεοδώρα Κ.,Κούρτης Βασίλειος, Μαραζοπούλου Βασιλική, Χατζηδανδή Χριστίνα, Ψάρρα Μαρία

    Εκδόσεις Σάκκουλα Αθήνα-Θεσσαλονίκη
    2016
    Περισσότερα εδώ.

  • Savigny Report – 2/2015

  • Savigny – Recent News

  • Savigny – Πρόσφατες Ειδήσεις

  • News Calendar

    December 2016
    M T W T F S S
    « Nov   Jan »
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    262728293031  
  • News Categories

  • News Archives

  • Editors