EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020CA0242
Case C-242/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske — Croatia) — HRVATSKE ŠUME d.o.o., Zagreb, successor in title to HRVATSKE ŠUME javno poduzeće za gospodarenje šumama i šumskim zemljištima u Republici Hrvatskoj p.o., Zagreb v BP Europa SE, successor in title to Deutsche BP AG, in turn successor in title to The Burmah Oil (Deutschland) GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 5(3) — Concept of ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ — Judicial enforcement proceedings — Action for recovery of sums unduly paid based on unjust enrichment — Article 22(5) — Enforcement of judgments — Exclusive jurisdiction)
Case C-242/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske — Croatia) — HRVATSKE ŠUME d.o.o., Zagreb, successor in title to HRVATSKE ŠUME javno poduzeće za gospodarenje šumama i šumskim zemljištima u Republici Hrvatskoj p.o., Zagreb v BP Europa SE, successor in title to Deutsche BP AG, in turn successor in title to The Burmah Oil (Deutschland) GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 5(3) — Concept of ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ — Judicial enforcement proceedings — Action for recovery of sums unduly paid based on unjust enrichment — Article 22(5) — Enforcement of judgments — Exclusive jurisdiction)
Case C-242/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske — Croatia) — HRVATSKE ŠUME d.o.o., Zagreb, successor in title to HRVATSKE ŠUME javno poduzeće za gospodarenje šumama i šumskim zemljištima u Republici Hrvatskoj p.o., Zagreb v BP Europa SE, successor in title to Deutsche BP AG, in turn successor in title to The Burmah Oil (Deutschland) GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 5(3) — Concept of ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ — Judicial enforcement proceedings — Action for recovery of sums unduly paid based on unjust enrichment — Article 22(5) — Enforcement of judgments — Exclusive jurisdiction)
OJ C 73, 14.2.2022, p. 3–4
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 73, 14.2.2022, p. 2–2
(GA)
|
14.2.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 73/3 |
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske — Croatia) — HRVATSKE ŠUME d.o.o., Zagreb, successor in title to HRVATSKE ŠUME javno poduzeće za gospodarenje šumama i šumskim zemljištima u Republici Hrvatskoj p.o., Zagreb v BP Europa SE, successor in title to Deutsche BP AG, in turn successor in title to The Burmah Oil (Deutschland) GmbH
(Case C-242/20) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 5(3) - Concept of ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ - Judicial enforcement proceedings - Action for recovery of sums unduly paid based on unjust enrichment - Article 22(5) - Enforcement of judgments - Exclusive jurisdiction)
(2022/C 73/04)
Language of the case: Croatian
Referring court
Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant and appellant: HRVATSKE ŠUME d.o.o., Zagreb, successor in title to HRVATSKE ŠUME javno poduzeće za gospodarenje šumama i šumskim zemljištima u Republici Hrvatskoj p.o., Zagreb
Defendant and respondent: BP Europa SE, successor in title to Deutsche BP AG, in turn successor in title to The Burmah Oil (Deutschland) GmbH
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Article 22(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for restitution based on unjust enrichment does not come within the exclusive jurisdiction provided for by that provision, even though it was brought on account of the expiry of the time limit within which restitution of sums unduly paid in enforcement proceedings may be claimed in the context of the same enforcement proceedings. |
|
2. |
Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that an action for restitution based on unjust enrichment does not fall within the scope of the ground of jurisdiction laid down in that provision. |