Summary
Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on tacit prorogation of jurisdiction does not apply in a case where the lack of jurisdiction has been timely raised and the court has ruled on said objection and, therefore, an issue has arisen as to the means for submitting again this issue to the appellate court, so as to avoid that the ruling on jurisdiction becomes res iudicata. Pursuant to Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - as it was already the case under Article 19 of the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, as interpreted by the EC Court of Justice in its decision dated 15 November 1983, case 288/1982 (Duijmtee v Goderbauerl - a national court shall declare of its own motion that it lacks jurisdiction only if the relevant claim falls among those over which other courts have exclusive jurisdiction, even though the applicable procedural rules limit the investigation of the court - in case of an appeal to the Corte di Cassazione - to the evidence alleged by the parties. A national court of last instance shall not refer a question of interpretation to the EC Court of Justice if it does not deem that said question is relevant for the purposes of its decision, or if it believes that the matter in question is acte ciair, which, due to the existence of previous rulings of the Court of Justice or due to the ‘obviousness’ of the relevant interpretation, makes it superfluous (or not mandatory) to request a preliminary ruling.