The Court of Justice of the European Union released the court order of 11 September 2014 in Case C-112/13, A, regarding a request for a preliminary ruling introduced by Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) on the interpretation of Article 267 TFEU and Article 24 of Regulation no. 44/2001, on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of courts decision in civil and commercial matters, in a dispute in which he was sued in an action for damages brought by B and others at the austrian courts.
Whereas it has resulted that A no longer lived at the address where the action was communicated, the austrian court named a curator of the absent defendant. Subsequently, a law firm was empowered by A to intervene in his behalf and invoked the austrian courts lack of international jurisdiction and non-compliance with article 47 of theCharter of Fundamental Rights of the provisions of the austrian Civil Procedure Code which allows the designation of a curator of the absent defendant.
The national court asked the Court to determine whether the obligations of the national courts under article 267 TFEU and the rule of Union law principle oppose the austrian Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence, under which the ordinary courts of appeal or the last instance are obliged to notify this court when it considers that a law is contrary to the Charter, under the insidental proceedings for general annulment of laws.
The Court essentially said that European Union law, in particular article 267 TFEU, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the ordinary courts of appeal or the last instance are kept, where it considers that a national law is contrary to article 47 of the Charter of fundamental Rights of the European Union to notify, during the proceedings, the Constitutional Court for general annulment of law, rather than merely to decline to apply them in this case, to the extent that the priority of this procedure has the effect of preventing those ordinary courts to exercise the opportunity orto fulfill their duty to notify the Court with preliminary questions.
However, the European Union law, in particular Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding such national legislation, under the condition that the mentioned ordinary courts remain free to:
– Notify the Court at any stage of the proceedings it considers necessary,
– Adopt any measure necessary to ensure provisional judicial protection of the rights conferred by European Union law and
– To remove, at the end of such incidental proceedings the national legislative provision if it considers to be contrary to EU law.
Also, article 24 of Regulation no. 44/2001, viewed in the light of article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a national court, acting in accordance with the national law, names a curator of the absent defendant for a defendant who has not been communicated to the original application, in the absence of known residences, the curator of the absent defendant appearance does not constitute an appearance by the defendant, within the meaning of article 24 of this Regulation, to determine the international jurisdiction of that court.
:: The source: JURIDICE.ro