Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 15 May 2015 — Hőszig Kft. v Alstom Power Thermal Services
(Case C-222/15)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring court
Pécsi Törvényszék
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Hőszig Kft.
Defendant: Alstom Power Thermal Services
Questions referred
I. With regard to Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (‘Regulation No 59
erformance of the contract?1.1 Must the effect referred to in Article 10(2) resulting from the situation described in the preceding paragraph 1 be interpreted as meaning that when, as a result of the reference made [to the law of the country of habitual residence] by a party, it appears from the circumstances that consent to the law applicable pursuant to paragraph 1 was not a reasonable effect of that party’s conduct, the court must determine the existence and validity of the contractual clause pursuant to the law of the country of
habitual residence of the party who made the reference?May the court of that Member State interpret Article 10(2) of Regulation No 593/2008 as meaning that the court has a discretion — having regard to all the circumstances of the case — if, in the light of the circumstances to be taken into consideration, consent to the law applicable under Article 10(1) was not a reasonable effect of the party’s conduct?If a party — under Article 10(2) of Regulation No 593/2008 — refers to the law of the country in which he has his habitual residence in order to establish th
at he did not consent, must the court of a Member State take into account the law of the country of habitual residence of that party in the sense that, by virtue of the law of that country, because of the ‘circumstances’ mentioned, the consent of that party to the law chosen in the contract was not reasonable conduct?3.1 In that case, is an interpretat
ion by a court of a Member State contrary to EU law if, according to that interpretation, the examination of the ‘circumstances’ in order to determine whether it is reasonable to find that a party did not consent covers the circumstances of the conclusion of the contract, the subject-matter of the contract and the performance of the contract?II. With regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of j
udgments in civil and commercial matters:1. Is the interpretation of a court of a Member State contrary to Article 23(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 if, according to it, a specific court must be designated or — having regard to the content of recital 14 in the preamble to that Regulation — is it sufficient if the wish or intention of the parties can be deduced unequivocally from
the wording?1.1 Is the interpretation of a court of a Member State consistent with Article 23(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 if, according to it, a clause conferring jurisdicti
on, included in the standard contract terms of one of the parties, under which the parties stipulate that disputes arising from or connected with the validity, performance or termination of the order which cannot be settled amicably between the parties are to be subject to the exclusive and final jurisdiction of the courts of a city of a specific Me
mber State — specifically, the courts of Paris — is sufficiently precise, given that the wish or intention of the parties in relation to the designated Member State can be deduced unequivocally from its wording — having regard to the content of recital 14 in the preamble to the Regulation?
____________1 OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6. OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.