Case C-398/92, Firma Mund & Fester v Firma Hatrex Internationaal Transport, 10 February 1994, [I994] ECR 1—467, European Court of Justice

Ameli, F., De Baets, C., Ehricke, L., Kennett, Wendy ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2700-993X, van Haegenburgh, G. and Verschuur, R. 1995. Case C-398/92, Firma Mund & Fester v Firma Hatrex Internationaal Transport, 10 February 1994, [I994] ECR 1—467, European Court of Justice. European Review of Private Law 3 (4) , pp. 613-648.

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

The defendant company had transported goods to Germany, but under conditions of transport that had damaged them. Mund & Fester was the assignee of the consignee, and claimed damages. To ensure that funds were available for enforcement purposes, it sought to have the vehicle seized while it was still in Germany, under § 917 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). This provision permitted provisional seizure of goods if enforcement was likely to be impossible or markedly more difficult in the absence of such an order and specifically provided that the fact that enforcement would have to take place abroad was sufficient justification for an order. On a preliminary reference by the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht the European Court concluded that the German provision in issue fell within the scope of the EEC Treaty and must be examined in the light of Art. 7 (now 6) EEC Treaty. Art. 7 prohibits all discrimination on grounds of nationality within the scope of the Treaty. The German provision constituted indirect discrimination which could not be justified on objective grounds and was therefore unlawful.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Law
Subjects:	K Law > K Law (General)
Publisher:	Kluwer Law International
ISSN:	0928-9801
Last Modified:	28 Oct 2022 09:36
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/75068

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item