Reports of Cases

published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Request for a preliminary ruling – Hoge Raad der Nederlanden – Interpretation of Article 34(1) 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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) and of Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45) – Recognition and enforcement of judgments – Grounds for refusal – Infringement of public policy in the Member State in which recognition is sought – Notion – Judgment delivered by a court in another Member State which is manifestly contrary to European Union law – Enforcement of intellectual property rights – Legal costs – Scope – Action for damages which raises the issue of recognition of a judgment delivered by a court of another Member State.

Systematic classification scheme

Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

• TFEU - Protocol No 3 -A23 : paragraph 34
• TFEU, Article 252 -L2 : paragraph 37
• TFEU, Article 267 : paragraphs 49, 59, 63, 67
• TFEU, Article 267 -L2 : paragraph 58
• TFEU, Article 267 -L3 : paragraph 66
• TEU, Article 4 -P3 : paragraph 57
• Directive 89/104 : paragraphs 8, 52, 66
• Directive 89/104 -A05P1LA : paragraph 9
• Directive 89/104 -A05P3 : paragraphs 47, 51, 53, 60, 68
• Directive 89/104 -A07 : paragraph 51
• Directive 89/104 -A07P1 : paragraph 10
• Regulation 44/2001 : paragraphs 49, 63, 64
• Regulation 44/2001 -A33 : paragraphs 4, 5
• Regulation 44/2001 -A34 : paragraphs 4, 6
• Regulation 44/2001 -A34PT1 : paragraphs 1, 30, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 48, 68
• Regulation 44/2001 -A36 : paragraphs 4, 7, 43
• Regulation 44/2001 -C16 : paragraphs 3, 40
• Directive 2004/48 : paragraphs 70, 73, 75, 76
• Directive 2004/48 -A01 : paragraphs 13, 72
• Directive 2004/48 -A02P1 : paragraphs 14, 72
• Directive 2004/48 -A03P2 : paragraph 15
• Directive 2004/48 -A07P1 : paragraphs 16, 74
• Directive 2004/48 -A07P4 : paragraphs 16, 74
• Directive 2004/48 -A09P1 : paragraphs 16, 74
• Directive 2004/48 -A09P3 : paragraph 74
• Directive 2004/48 -A09P7 : paragraph 16
• Directive 2004/48 -A14 : paragraphs 1, 17, 30, 69, 77, 78, 80
• Directive 2004/48 -C10 : paragraphs 11, 71
• Directive 2004/48 -C22 : paragraphs 12, 74
• Directive 2008/95 : paragraph 8
• Court of Justice - Rules of Procedure (2012) -A83 : paragraph 34
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -38/98 -N32 : paragraph 48
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -224/01 -N35 : paragraph 66
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -224/01 -N50 : paragraph 66
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -224/01 -N59 : paragraph 66
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -420/07 -N55 : paragraph 41
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -420/07 -N60 : paragraph 49
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -173/09 -N27 : paragraph 65
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -406/09 -N48 : paragraph 77
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/10 -N62 : paragraph 59
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/10 -N63 : paragraph 59
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -435/12 -N61 : paragraph 73
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -302/13 -N45 : paragraph 40
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -302/13 -N47 : paragraph 42
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -302/13 -N48 : paragraph 43
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -302/13 -N49 : paragraph 44
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -434/13 -N27 : paragraph 34
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -434/13 -N29 : paragraph 37
• Court of Justice - Opinion 2/13 -N191 : paragraph 40

Operative part

• Interprets : Directive 89/104 -A05P3
• Interprets : Regulation 44/2001 -A34PT1
• Interprets : Directive 2004/48 -A14

Opinion

• TFEU, Article 101 : point 53
  
• TFEU, Article 258 : point 54
  
• TFEU, Article 267 : points 54, 56, 62
  
• TFEU, Article 267 -L2 : point 58
  
• TFEU, Article 267 -L3 : point 57
  
• Directive 89/104 -A05 : points 33, 39, 45, 46, 53
  
• Directive 89/104 -C3 : point 52
  
• Directive 89/104 -C4 : point 52
  
• Directive 89/104 -C5 : point 52
  
• Regulation 44/2001 : points 2 - 6, 36, 41, 42, 50 - 52, 65
  
• Regulation 44/2001 -A33P1 : points 3, 4
  
• Regulation 44/2001 -A34 : point 41
  
• Regulation 44/2001 -A34P1 : points 5, 24, 34, 44, 48, 51, 5354
  
• Regulation 44/2001 -A34P2 : point 5
  
• Regulation 44/2001 -A34PT1 : points 1, 3, 37, 38, 40 - 44, 62 - 64, 68, 77
  
• Regulation 44/2001 -A34PT2 : point 3
  
• Regulation 44/2001 -A35 : point 41
  
• Regulation 44/2001 -A36 : points 3, 6, 43, 51
  
• Regulation 44/2001 -A45P2 : point 43
  
• Regulation 44/2001 -A46 : point 63
  
• Regulation 44/2001 -A68P1 : point 41
  
• Regulation 44/2001 -C16 : points 2, 40
  
• Regulation 44/2001 -C17 : points 2, 40
  
• Regulation 44/2001 -C6 : points 2, 40
  
• Directive 2004/48 : points 7 - 11, 72
  
• Directive 2004/48 -A01 : points 7, 71
  
• Directive 2004/48 -A02P1 : points 8, 71
  
• Directive 2004/48 -A03P2 : point 71
  
• Directive 2004/48 -A03P2 : point 9
  
• Directive 2004/48 -A07P1 : points 10, 73
  
• Directive 2004/48 -A07P4 : points 10, 73
  
• Directive 2004/48 -A09P1LB : point 10
  
• Directive 2004/48 -A09P7 : points 10, 73
  
• Directive 2004/48 -A14 : points 11, 24, 34, 70, 74 - 77
  
• Directive 2004/48 -C10 : point 71
  
• Directive 2004/48 -C11 : point 71
  
• Regulation 1215/2012 -A45 : points 42, 51
  
• Brussels Convention 1968 : points 41, 42
  
• Brussels Convention 1968 -A27P1 : point 41
  
• Commission - COM Document (Draft Legislation) - 51999PC0348 : point 42
  
• Commission - COM Document (Draft Legislation) - 52010PC0748 : point 42
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -145/86 -N21 : point 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/92 -N20 : point 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -337/95 -N26 : point 57
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -126/97 : point 53
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -126/97 -N34 : point 54
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -126/97 -N36 : point 39
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -126/97 -N39 : point 53
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -126/97 -N40 : point 54
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -424/97 -N58 : point 29
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -435/97 -N32 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -38/98 -N58 : point 38
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -38/98 -N66 : point 51
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -38/98 -N67 : point 52
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -7/98 : point 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -7/98 -N21 : point 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -7/98 -N22 : point 38
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -7/98 -N23 : point 38
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -7/98 -N36 : point 43
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -38/98 : point 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -38/98 -N26 : point 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -38/98 -N27 : point 38
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -38/98 -N28 : point 38
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -38/98 -N29 : point 43
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -38/98 -N30 : points 44, 51
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -38/98 -N32 : point 44
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -38/98 -N33 : points 50, 62
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -224/01 -N50 : points 54, 67
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -405/03 -N58 : point 33
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -210/06 -N90 : point 56
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -210/06 -N91 : point 57
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -394/07 : point 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -394/07 -N27 : point 44
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -420/07 -N55 : point 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -420/07 -N56 : point 38
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -420/07 -N57 : point 38
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -420/07 -N58 : point 43
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -420/07 -N59 : points 44, 51
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -420/07 -N60 : points 1, 50, 62
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -22/08 -N23 : point 29
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -111/08 -N22 : point 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -167/08 -N20 : point 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -292/08 -N27 : point 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -232/09 -N33 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -232/09 -N34 : point 29
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -232/09 -N36 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -406/09 -N38 : point 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -406/09 -N48 : point 74
  
• Court of Justice - Order C -449/09 -N19 : point 33
  
• Court of Justice - Order C -449/09 -N26 : point 33
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/10 -N6 : point 56
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/10 -N63 : point 57
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -139/10 -N27 : point 40
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -139/10 -N28 : point 40
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -139/10 -N33 : point 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -180/11 -N75 : point 72
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -645/11 -N31 : point 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -49/12 -N32 : point 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -136/12 -N25 : point 57
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -136/12 -N28 : point 56
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -302/13 -N45 : point 40
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -302/13 -N46 : point 41
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -302/13 -N47 : point 38
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -302/13 -N48 : point 43
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -302/13 -N49 : point 44
  
• Court of Justice - Order C -535/13 : point 33
  

Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

• 23/12/2013

Date of the Opinion

• 03/03/2015

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

16/07/2015

References

Publication in the Official Journal

Judgment: OJ C 311 from 21.09.2015, p.6

Application: OJ C 71 from 08.03.2014, p.11

Name of the parties

Diageo Brands

Notes on Academic Writings

1. Marino, Silvia: L'obbligo di rinvio pregiudiziale fra responsabilità dello Stato e circolazione della sentenza dell'Unione, Rivista di diritto internazionale 2015 p.1270-1274 (IT)
2. Dolžan, Judita: Sodna odločba sodišča druge države članice, ki je v nasprotju s pravom EU, ne pomeni kršitve javnega reda, Pravna praksa 2015 nº 38 p.24-25 (SL)
3. Idot, Laurence: Reconnaissance et exception d'ordre public, Europe 2015 Octobre Comm. nº 10 p.46-47 (FR)
4. Laazouzi, Malik: Cour de justice, 1ère ch., 16 juillet 2015, Diageo Brands BV, aff. C-681/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:471, Jurisprudence de la CJUE 2015 (Ed. Bruylant - Bruxelles) 2015 p.878-880 (FR)
5. Idot, Laurence: Reconnaissance et exception d'ordre public, Europe 2015 Octobre Comm. nº 10 p.46-47 (FR)
6. Mankowski, Peter: Zur Anerkennung der Entscheidung eines EU-ausländischen Gerichts trotz Verstoßes gegen EU-Recht („Diageo Brands“), Entscheidungen zum Wirtschaftsrecht 2015 p.557-558 (DE)
7. Dietze, Jan: EuGVVO: Ordre-public-Verstoß bei Verletzung des Unionsrechts und von Verfahrensgarantien, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2015 Heft 18 p.717-718 (DE)
8. Nourissat, Cyril: Refus d'exequatur pour contrariété à l'ordre public d'une décision prononcée dans un autre État membre : quand la CJUE réécrit le règlement "Bruxelles I" ..., Procédures 2015 nº 10 p.17-18 (FR)
9. Ancery, A.G.F.: Erkenning van mogelijk met EU-recht strijdige vreemde vonnissen, Weekblad voor privaatrecht, notariaat en registratie 2016 p.1-2 (NL)
10. Hazelhorst, Monique: Onjuiste toepassing van het Unierecht als grond voor toepassing van de openbare‐orde‐exceptie, Nederlands internationaal privaatrecht 2016 Afl.1 p.11-17 (NL)
11. Heymann, Jeremy: Reconnaissance et exécution des décisions.– Règlement (CE) n° 44/2001. – Motifs de refus. – Violation de l'ordre public de l'État requis. – Décision émanant d'une juridiction d'un autre État membre, contraire au droit de l'Union en matière de marques. – Directive 2004/48/CE. – Respect des droits de propriété intellectuelle. – Frais de justice., Journal du droit international Janvier-Février-Mars 2016 n°1 p.155-171 (FR)
12. Giannino, Michele: A tale of whisky and sorrow: the Court of Justice says that misapplication of EU rules on exhaustion of trade mark rights is not a breach of public policy, Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 2016 p.399-401 (EN)
13. Azzi, Tristan: Circulation des jugements, droit des marques et ordre public, Revue critique de droit international privé 2016 nº 2 p.367-377 (FR)
14. Schulze, Götz: You'll never walk alone? Verstoß gegen Unionsrecht und Rechtsbehelfsobliegenheit in der Urteilsanerkennung, Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts 2016 p.234-237 (DE)
15. Pailler, Ludovic: La portée de l'obligation de reconnaître une décision relative à la garde d'un enfant émanant de la juridiction de l'État membre dans lequel l'enfant a été déplacé en application du réglement n° 2201/2003 "Bruxelles II bis", Journal du droit international 2016 N°2 p.593-603 (FR)
16. Laazouzi, Malik: XXI. Compétence des juridictions et lois applicables - Cour de justice, 1ère ch., 16 juillet 2015, Diageo Brands BV, aff. C-681/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:471, Jurisprudence de la CJUE 2015. Décisions et commentaires (Ed. Bruylant - Bruxelles) 2016, p. 878-880 (FR)
17. Deschuyteneer, Laura: Een kennelijk onjuiste toepassing van het Unierecht maakt (voorlopig nog) geen schending uit van de internationale openbare orde, Revue de droit commercial belge 2017 p.65-74 (NL)
18. Kornezov, Alexander: Ten Years of Preliminary References from Bulgaria - A Critical Appraisal, Европейски правен преглед 2017 nº XVIII p.21-42 (BG)

Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden - Netherlands

Subject-matter

• area of freedom, security and justice
  
• - Judicial cooperation in civil matters
  
• Approximation of laws
  
• Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
  

Provisions of national law referred to

Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering, art. 1019h

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

• Reference for a preliminary ruling
  

Formation of the Court

première chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Berger

Advocate General

Szpunar

Language(s) of the Case

• Dutch
  

Language(s) of the Opinion

• French