Hotărârea din 17 Noiembrie 2011 pronunţată de Curtea Europeană de Justiţie în cauza C-327/10 Hypotečni Banka vs. Udo Mike Lindner. Interpretarea art. 81 TFUE, art. 16 alin. (2), art. 17 pct. 3 şi art. 24 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 44/2001
The decision of 17 November 2011, rendered by the European Court of Justice in the case C-327/10 Hypotečni Banka vs. Udo Mike Lindner. The interpretation of art. 81 TFUE, art. 16 par. (2), art. 17 point 3 and art. 24 of the Regulation (CE) no. 44/200
Author(s): Constantin Antonia EleonoraSubject(s): Law, Constitution, Jurisprudence
Published by: Universul Juridic
Summary/Abstract: The Court in Luxembourg has answered in this case a preliminary question, being notified by a Czech court regarding the interpretation of the norms of competence within the litigations with elements of extraneity in the contracts concluded with the customers. The European Court of Justice has decided that the Czech courts are competent to solve the action formulated by the bank against the defendant, in the extent in which they are unable to localize his actual domicile and the latter hasn’t communicated to the bank the change of domicile, as it was stipulated in the contract concluded. In essence, the interpretation of the norms has been realized in a way which conciliates the contradictory interests in question and assures a fair equilibrium between the rights of the claimant (who has not to be confronted with a denial of justice) and the right of the defense of the defendant, being decided also on the limits of the right of defense and on the conditions which the restraints of right have to fulfill, in order to be considered as complying with art. 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
Journal: Revista Pro Lege
- Issue Year: 2011
- Issue No: 3-4
- Page Range: 213-219
- Page Count: 7
- Language: Romanian