european court of auditors

Topics: European Union, European Court of Justice, United States Pages: 7 (2205 words) Published: December 23, 2013
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber)
of 10 July 1986
Fernand Carron v Federal Republic of Germany. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Hof van Cassatie - Belgium. Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 - Second paragraph of Article 33 - Furnishing of an address for service. Case 198/85.

CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS - ENFORCEMENT - PROCEDURE - FURNISHING OF AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS - RULES - APPLICABLE LAW - LAW OF THE STATE IN WHICH ENFORCEMENT IS SOUGHT - PRINCIPLES WHICH APPLY WHEN THAT LAW IS SILENT AS TO THE TIME AT WHICH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IS TO BE GIVEN - FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES ON THE FURNISHING OF AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE - CONSEQUENCES

(CONVENTION OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1968 , ART. 33)
THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 33 OF THE CONVENTION OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1968 ON JURISDICTION AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE OBLIGATION TO GIVE AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS LAID DOWN IN THAT PROVISION MUST BE FULFILLED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE RULES LAID DOWN BY THE LAW OF THE STATE IN WHICH ENFORCEMENT IS SOUGHT , AND IF THAT LAW IS SILENT AS TO THE TIME AT WHICH THAT FORMALITY MUST BE OBSERVED , NO LATER THAN THE DATE ON WHICH THE DECISION AUTHORIZING ENFORCEMENT IS SERVED

THE CONSEQUENCES OF A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES ON THE FURNISHING OF AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE ARE , BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 33 OF THE CONVENTION , GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE IN WHICH ENFORCEMENT IS SOUGHT , PROVIDED THAT THE AIMS OF THE CONVENTION ARE RESPECTED.

IN CASE 198/85
REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 3 (1) OF 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 BY THE HOF VAN CASSATIE (COURT OF CASSATION) OF BELGIUM FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN

FERNAND CARRON , ANTWERP ,
AND
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 33 OF THE CONVENTION OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1968 ON JURISDICTION AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS ,
1 BY AN ORDER OF 14 JUNE 1985 , WHICH WAS RECEIVED AT THE COURT ON 26 JUNE 1985 , THE HOF VAN CASSATIE (COURT OF CASSATION) OF BELGIUM REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING 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 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' THE CONVENTION ') THREE QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 33 OF © An extract from a JUSTIS database

61985J0198 European Court reports 1986 Page 02437 2
THE CONVENTION.
2 THE QUESTIONS AROSE IN THE COURSE OF AN APPEAL IN CASSATION BROUGHT BY MR CARRON AGAINST A JUDGMENT OF 14 JUNE 1984 IN WHICH THE RECHTBANK VAN EERSTE AANLEG (COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE), ANTWERP , DISMISSED HIS APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER MADE BY THE SAME COURT ON 27 JULY 1982.

3 THAT ORDER , ISSUED ON THE APPLICATION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY , AUTHORIZED THE ENFORCEMENT IN BELGIUM OF A JUDGMENT OF 9 MARCH 1982 IN WHICH THE LANDGERICHT (REGIONAL COURT) DUISBURG ORDERED MR CARRON TO PAY THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY DAMAGES IN THE SUM OF DM 5 240 000. 4 IN SUPPORT OF HIS APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE THE ENFORCEMENT ORDER MR CARRON ARGUED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE VOID ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE APPLICATION INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY HAD FAILED TO GIVE AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE. IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 14 JUNE 1984 THE RECHTBANK VAN EERSTE AANLEG HELD , DISMISSING MR CARRON ' S APPLICATION , THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 33 OF THE CONVENTION HAD INDEED BEEN FULFILLED , BY THE INCLUSION OF AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN THE DOCUMENT GIVING NOTICE OF THE ENFORCEMENT ORDER. 5 THE HOF VAN CASSATIE DECIDED...
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • An Introduction to the European Court of Auditors Essay
  • Auditor Essay
  • court observation Essay
  • Court Essay
  • European Essay
  • courts Essay
  • European Court of Justice Essay
  • Exclusionary Rule vs. European Court of Human Rights Research Paper

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free