Following the opinion of Advocate General Pikamäe, last week (8 June 2023) the Court of Justice delivered its judgment on the case No C-567/21, BNP Paribas SA v. TR.
The dispute in the main proceeding raises several questions as to the res judicata accorded to a decision rendered in a Member State (United Kingdom) whose recognition is sought as an incidental question to challenge a new action brought in another Member State (France) and stemming from the same contract.
Although through a different legal reasoning, the Court of Justice adopts a solution similar to the one suggested by the Advocate General. Indeed, the Court of Justice stated that Arts 33 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, read in conjunction with Art 36 thereof, must be interpreted as “precluding the recognition, in the Member State addressed, of a judgment concerning an employment contract, given in the Member State of origin, from resulting in the inadmissibility of claims brought before a court of the Member State addressed on the ground that the legislation of the Member State of origin lays down a procedural rule for the centralisation of all claims relating to that employment contract, without prejudice to the procedural rules of the Member State addressed which are liable to apply once that recognition has occurred”.
On the topics addressed in the opinion, the readers of RDIPP may refer to:
Chiara E. Tuo, 2019, No 2, 302 ff.; Giacomo Biagioni, 2011, No 4, 971 ff.; Maria Giovanna Pizzorni, 2011, No 4, 1025 ff.; Bruno Nascimbene, 2002, No 3, 659 ff.
Moreover, see, in our Book Series:
Fausto Pocar, Ilaria Viarengo, Francesca C. Villata (eds.), Book No 76; Franco Ferrari, Francesca Ragno (eds.), Book No 80.