Case C‑540/19

WV

v

Landkreis Harburg

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof)

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 17 September 2020

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction in matters relating to maintenance obligations – Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 – Article 3(b) – Court for the place where the maintenance creditor is habitually resident – Action for recovery brought by a public body subrogated to the claims of a maintenance creditor)

1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations – Regulation No 4/2009 – Jurisdiction in matters relating to maintenance obligations – General provisions – Criteria for attributing jurisdiction that are equal and alternative

   (Council Regulation No 4/2009, Art. 3)

   (see paragraphs 29, 30)

2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations – Regulation No 4/2009 – Jurisdiction in matters relating to maintenance obligations – Court for the place where the maintenance creditor is habitually resident – Jurisdiction of that court to rule on an action for recovery brought by a public body subrogated to the claims of that creditor

   (Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007, Arts 3(2) and 10; Council Regulation No 4/2009, recitals 14 and 45 and Art. 2(1)(1) and (10), Arts 3, 15 and 64)

   (see paragraphs 31, 33-44, operative part)

3. Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations – Regulation No 4/2009 – Objective

   (Council Regulation No 4/2009, recital 45 and Art. 3(b))

   (see paragraphs 33, 36, 37)

Résumé

WV, who is resident in Vienna (Austria), is required under German civil law to pay maintenance to his mother, who lives in a care home for the elderly in Cologne (Germany). However, WV’s mother regularly receives benefits provided in place of maintenance from the Landkreis Harburg (Administrative District of Harburg, Germany) (‘the applicant body’) in accordance with the provisions of German social security law. That body argues that, in accordance with those provisions, it is subrogated to the claims of WV’s mother against WV in respect of the benefits that it has paid in her favour since April 2017. Under those provisions, claims that are the subject of such subrogation must be enforced before the civil courts.

Accordingly, the applicant body brought an action for recovery of maintenance against WV before the German civil courts on the basis of Regulation No 4/2009, ( 1 ) which governs, inter alia, international jurisdiction in matters relating to maintenance obligations; specifically, it relied on Article 3(b) of that regulation, which provides that the court for the place where the creditor is habitually resident is to have jurisdiction. The first-instance court held that the German courts did not have international jurisdiction to rule on the action, since jurisdiction based on the provision referred to above could be invoked only by the individual to whom maintenance is owed. However, the appellate court found that the applicant body could invoke that jurisdiction as transferee of maintenance claims. Hearing an appeal on a point of law brought by WV against that decision, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany) referred a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling, seeking to ascertain whether the public body at issue has the right, in the circumstances of this case, to bring an action before the court for the place where the creditor – namely WV’s mother – has her habitual residence.

In its judgment of 17 September 2020, the Court held that that a public body which seeks to recover, by way of an action for recovery, sums paid in place of maintenance to a maintenance creditor, and to which the claims of that maintenance creditor against the maintenance debtor have been transferred by way of subrogation, may validly invoke the jurisdiction of the court for the place where the creditor is habitually resident. In order to reach that conclusion, the Court examined Article 3 of Regulation No 4/2009, which designates which courts have jurisdiction to rule in matters relating to maintenance obligations in Member States, in the light of its wording, objectives and the scheme of which it forms part.

The Court found that the wording of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article 3 of Regulation No 4/2009 does not specify that the action must be brought by the maintenance creditor himself or herself before the courts identified in that article. Accordingly, that article does not, subject to the objectives and scheme of that regulation being observed, preclude a claim relating to a maintenance obligation from being brought by a public body, to which the claims of that creditor have been transferred by way of statutory subrogation, before one or the other of those courts. Neither the objectives nor the scheme of Regulation No 4/2009 preclude the court for the place where the creditor is habitually resident from having jurisdiction to rule on such a claim.

In the first place, acknowledging that that court has jurisdiction to rule on that claim is consistent with the objectives pursued by Regulation No 4/2009, which include both proximity between the competent court and the maintenance creditor and the objective of facilitating as far as possible the recovery of international maintenance claims. In particular, that objective would be undermined if a public body subrogated to the claims of the maintenance creditor were deprived of the right to invoke the jurisdiction criteria provided for in favour of the applicant in matters relating to maintenance obligations, in Article 3(a) and (b) of Regulation No 4/2009, both where the defendant is resident within the European Union and, as the case may be, where the defendant is resident in the territory of a third State. Furthermore, acknowledging that such a body may validly bring an action before the courts identified in Article 3(b) of Regulation No 4/2009 would in no way undermine the objective of the proper administration of justice, which is also pursued by that regulation. That objective must be understood, in particular, from the point of view of the interests of the litigant, whether claimant or defendant, who must be able to benefit, inter alia, from easier access to justice and predictable rules on jurisdiction. The transfer of the maintenance creditor’s rights to such a body impairs neither the interests of the maintenance debtor nor the predictability of the applicable rules of jurisdiction.

In the second place, the fact that a public body to which a maintenance creditor’s claims are transferred by way of statutory subrogation is allowed to bring an action before the courts where the creditor is habitually resident is also consistent with the scheme of Regulation No 4/2009 and with its background. In that regard, the Court noted that Article 64 of that regulation specifically envisages intervention by a public body, as an applicant, either acting in the place of an individual to whom maintenance is owed or as a body to which reimbursement is owed for benefits provided in place of maintenance. In particular, Article 64(3)(a) states that that public body is entitled to seek the recognition and declaration of the enforceability or claim the enforcement of a decision given against a debtor on the application of a public body which claims payment of benefits provided in place of maintenance. That provision means that such a public body has already been given the opportunity to bring an action before the courts identified in Article 3(b) of Regulation No 4/2009, so that that court may issue a decision in matters relating to maintenance obligations.

( 1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations (OJ 2009 L 7, p. 1).