Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Holterman Ferho Exploitatie BV and Others v F.L.F. Spies von Büllesheim (C-47/14)
Judgment
Consideration of the questions referred
The first question
37

Holterman Ferho Exploitatie BV and Others v F.L.F. Spies von Büllesheim (C-47/14)

Judgment of 10 Sept 2015law://eu/cjeu/2014/c-47-14/para_37@2026-11-10

37In order to ensure the full effectiveness of Regulation No 44/2001, in particular Article 18, the legal concepts that regulation uses must be given an independent interpretation common to all the Member States (judgment in Mahamdia, C‑154/11, EU:C:2012:491, paragraph 42).

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Third Chamber
Case: C-47/14 · ECLI:EU:C:2015:574
Decided: 10 Sept 2015
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)
Applicants: Holterman Ferho Exploitatie BV; Ferho Bewehrungsstahl GmbH; Ferho Vechta GmbH; Ferho Frankfurt GmbH
Defendant: Friedrich Leopold Freiherr Spies von Büllesheim
Rapporteur: C. Toader
Advocate General: P. Cruz Villalón
Bench: 5 judges
M. Ilešič, A. Ó Caoimh, C. Toader, E. Jarašiūnas, C.G. Fernlund
Language: Dutch
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62014CJ0047

Topics

Judicial cooperation in civil matters

History · 1 version

10 Sept 2015Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
Cited by 10: Brian Andrew Kerr v Pavlo Postnov and Natalia Postnova (C-25/18); Universal Music International Holding BV v Michael Tétreault Schilling and Others (C-12/15); Wikingerhof GmbH & Co. KG v Booking.com BV (C-59/19); Peter Bosworth and Colin Hurley v Arcadia Petroleum Limited and Others (C-603/17)2 provisions; Sandra Nogueira and Others v Crewlink Ireland Ltd and Miguel José Moreno Osacar v Ryanair Designated Activity Company (C-168/16, C-169/16)2 provisions; G.M.K.-Z.B.M. v S.O (C-99/24); Azienda Agricola F.lli Buccelletti Srl v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-210/23); Les Chirurgiens-Dentistes de France and Others v Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé and Others (C-940/19); Sindicatul Familia Constanţa and Others v Direcţia Generală de Asistenţă Socială şi Protecţia Copilului Constanţa (C-147/17); Concurrence Sàrl v Samsung Electronics France SAS and Amazon Services Europe Sàrl (C-618/15)
Cites 22: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters; Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) Hydrogen Peroxide SA v Evonik Degussa GmbH and Others (C-352/13); Falco Privatstiftung and Thomas Rabitsch v Gisela Weller-Lindhorst (C-533/07); Corman-Collins SA v La Maison du Whisky SA (C-9/12); Ahmed Mahamdia v People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria (C-154/11)2 provisions; Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger GmbH v Silva Trade SA (C-19/09); Česká spořitelna, a.s. v Gerald Feichter (C-419/11); Zuid-Chemie BV v Philippo's Mineralenfabriek NV/SA (C-189/08); Marc Brogsitter v Fabrication de Montres Normandes EURL and Karsten Fräßdorf (C-548/12); Car Trim GmbH v KeySafety Systems Srl (C-381/08); Glaxosmithkline and Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline v Jean-Pierre Rouard (C-462/06); Martin Peters Bauunternehmung GmbH v Zuid Nederlandse Aannemers Vereniging (34/82); Ender Balkaya v Kiesel Abbruch- und Recycling Technik GmbH (C-229/14); Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC); Deborah Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg (66/85); Sari Kiiski v Tampereen kaupunki (C-116/06); Dita Danosa v LKB Līzings SIA (C-232/09); Coty Germany GmbH v First Note Perfumes NV (C-360/12); Hassan Shenavai v Klaus Kreischer (266/85); Holterman Ferho Exploitatie BV and Others v F.L.F. Spies von Büllesheim (C-47/14); Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work