Nota a Corte giust. un. eur., sez. I, 15 marzo 2012, C-292/10. The recent ECJ’s judgment draws attention to the problems related to the lack of known domicile of the defendant in the territory of a Member State, starting from the question of jurisdiction according to art. 4 (1), Reg. no 44/2001 to the question of the (precluded) certification as a EEO within the meaning of Reg. no 805/2004 of a judgment by default issued against a defendant whose address is unknown. The author upholds the conclusions to which the judgment has come, underlining nevertheless the problems related to the interpretation of art. 26 (2) Reg. no. 44/2001 hold by the Court.
Giurisdizione nei confronti del convenuto dal domicilio ignoto e tutela del diritto di difesa nell’ambito dei Reg. 44/2001 e 805/2004
TURATTO, SILVIA
2012
Abstract
Nota a Corte giust. un. eur., sez. I, 15 marzo 2012, C-292/10. The recent ECJ’s judgment draws attention to the problems related to the lack of known domicile of the defendant in the territory of a Member State, starting from the question of jurisdiction according to art. 4 (1), Reg. no 44/2001 to the question of the (precluded) certification as a EEO within the meaning of Reg. no 805/2004 of a judgment by default issued against a defendant whose address is unknown. The author upholds the conclusions to which the judgment has come, underlining nevertheless the problems related to the interpretation of art. 26 (2) Reg. no. 44/2001 hold by the Court.Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
