Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Villach (Austria) lodged on 27 December 2017 — Norbert Reitbauer and Others v Enrico Casamassima

(Case C-722/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bezirksgericht Villach

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Norbert Reitbauer, Dolinschek GmbH, B.T.S. Trendfloor Raumausstattungs-GmbH, Elektrounternehmen K. Maschke GmbH, Klaus Egger, Architekt DI Klaus Egger Ziviltechniker GmbH

Defendant: Enrico Casamassima

Questions referred

Question 1:

Must Article 24(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 ¹ of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the recast Brussels Regulation 2012) be interpreted as meaning that the opposition proceedings provided for in Paragraph 232 of the Exekutionsordnung (Austrian Enforcement Code) in the event of a dispute regarding the distribution of proceeds from a judicially ordered auction come within the scope of application of that provision,

even if the action brought by one pledgee against the other pledgee

(a)    is based on the objection that the latter’s claim arising from a loan agreement, which was secured by a pledge, no longer existed due to a counter-claim of the debtor for damages, and

(b)    is furthermore based on the objection — similar to an action for avoidance (Anfechtungsklage) — that the creation of the pledge for that claim under a loan agreement was invalid due to the preferential treatment of creditors?

Question 2 (if Question 1 is answered in the negative):

Must Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the recast Brussels Regulation 2012) be interpreted as meaning that the opposition proceedings provided for in Paragraph 232 of the Exekutionsordnung (Austrian Enforcement Code) in the event of a dispute regarding the distribution of proceeds from a judicially ordered auction come within the scope of application of that provision,

even if the action brought by one pledgee against the other pledgee

(a)    is based on the objection that the latter’s claim arising from a loan agreement, which was secured by a pledge, no longer existed due to a counter-claim of the debtor for damages and

(b)    is furthermore based on the objection — similar to an action for avoidance — that the creation of the pledge for that claim under a loan agreement was invalid due to the preferential treatment of creditors?

____________

¹ OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.