Case C‑548/12

Marc Brogsitter

v

Fabrication de Montres Normandes EURL

and

Karsten Fräßdorf

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld)

‛Area of freedom, security and justice — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Article 5(1) and (3) — Civil liability claim — Tortious or contractual nature’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber), 13 March 2014

1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Provisions of that regulation regarded as equivalent to those of the Brussels Convention — Interpretation of those provisions in accordance with the Court’s case-law on the convention

   (Convention of 27 September 1968; Council Regulation No 44/2001)

2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict — Definition — Civil liability claim not concerning matters relating to a contract

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 5, points 1(a) and 3)

3. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract — Definition — Civil liability claim made in tort under national law — Included — Condition — Breach of contract taking into account the purpose of the contract

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 5, points 1(a) and 3)

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 19)

2.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 20)

3.  Civil liability claims which are made in tort under national law must be regarded as concerning matters relating to a contract, within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, where the conduct complained of may be considered a breach of the terms of the contract, which may be established by taking into account the purpose of the contract.

   The mere fact that one contracting party brings a civil liability claim against the other is not sufficient to consider that the claim concerns matters relating to a contract within the meaning of that article. In that regard, the conduct complained of may be considered a breach of contract where the interpretation of the contract which links the defendant to the applicant is indispensable to establish the lawful or, on the contrary, unlawful nature of the conduct complained of against the former by the latter. Otherwise, if the referring court cannot determine that the purpose of the claim for damages can reasonably be regarded as a breach of the rights and obligations set out in the contract which binds the parties, the applicant’s claims must be considered as falling under matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001.

   (see paras 23-27, 29, operative part)