This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/283/19
Case C-394/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Milano (Italy) lodged on 22 August 2007 — Marco Gambazzi v Daimler Chrysler Canada Inc and CIBC Mellon Trust Company
Case C-394/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Milano (Italy) lodged on 22 August 2007 — Marco Gambazzi v Daimler Chrysler Canada Inc and CIBC Mellon Trust Company
Case C-394/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Milano (Italy) lodged on 22 August 2007 — Marco Gambazzi v Daimler Chrysler Canada Inc and CIBC Mellon Trust Company
OJ C 283, 24.11.2007, p. 11–11
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
24.11.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 283/11 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Milano (Italy) lodged on 22 August 2007 — Marco Gambazzi v Daimler Chrysler Canada Inc and CIBC Mellon Trust Company
(Case C-394/07)
(2007/C 283/19)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Corte d'Appello di Milano
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: Marco Gambazzi
Respondents: Daimler Chrysler Canada Inc, CIBC Mellon Trust Company
Questions referred
1. |
On the basis of the public-policy clause in Article 27(1) of the Brussels Convention, may the court of the State requested to enforce a judgment take account of the fact that the court of the State which handed down that judgment denied the unsuccessful party — which had entered an appearance — the opportunity to present any form of defence following the issue of a debarring order as described [in the grounds of the present Order]? |
2. |
Or does the interpretation of that provision in conjunction with the principles to be inferred from Article 26 et seq. of the Convention, concerning the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments within the Community, preclude the national court from finding that civil proceedings in which a party has been prevented from exercising the rights of the defence, on grounds of a debarring order issued by the court because of that party's failure to comply with a court injunction, are contrary to public policy within the meaning of Article 27(1)? |