–

Nemzeti Útdíjfizetési Szolgáltató Zrt., by M. Tändler, Rechtsanwalt,

–

the European Commission, by M. Heller and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents,

1

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

2

The request has been made in proceedings between Nemzeti Útdíjfizetési Szolgáltató Zrt., a limited liability company incorporated under Hungarian law and having its registered office in Budapest (Hungary), and NW, domiciled in Germany, concerning an application for recovery of a charge relating to the use of a toll road.

3

Recitals 10 and 15 of Regulation No 1215/2012 state:

…

4

Article 1(1) of that regulation provides:

‘This Regulation shall apply in civil and commercial matters whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. It shall not extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters or to the liability of the State for acts and omissions in the exercise of State authority (acta iure imperii).’

5

Article 4(1) of that regulation provides:

‘Subject to this Regulation, persons domiciled in a Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State.’

6

Paragraph 33/A(1) of Law No I of 1988 on road traffic (‘the Law on road traffic’) provides that the use of certain roads is subject to the payment of a usage charge. In the event of non-payment of that charge, a supplementary charge must be paid.

7

That law empowers the competent minister to make, by decree, the use of certain roads subject to a toll, and to fix the amount of the usage charges and the supplementary charges payable by the registered holder of a vehicle.

8

The Law on road traffic constitutes the legal basis of Decree No 36/2007 of the Minister for Economic Affairs and Transport on tolls for motorways, expressways and main roads (‘Decree No 36/2007’).

9

Under Paragraph 1 of Decree No 36/2007, the use of toll roads takes place ‘within a relationship governed by private law’.

10

The amount of the usage charge is set in Paragraph 6 of that decree. Under subparagraph 6 of that paragraph, that charge, for one week and for a category D 1 vehicle, amounts to 2975 forint (HUF) (approximately EUR 10).

11

Under Paragraph 7/A(1) of that decree, the supplementary charge is payable if it is established that a vehicle does not have a valid toll ticket. Subparagraph 7 of that paragraph provides that that charge is collected by Nemzeti Útdíjfizetési Szolgáltató.

12

The amount of the supplementary charge is set by the combined provisions of Paragraph 7/A(10) of, and of point 1 of Annex 1 to, Decree No 36/2007. In the event of payment within 60 days of receipt of the formal demand for payment, the amount of that charge is set at HUF 14875 (approximately EUR 50). If payment is not made within 60 days of receipt of that formal demand, the amount of that charge is set at HUF 59500 (approximately EUR 190).

13

The applicant in the main proceedings authorised Ungarische Autobahn Inkasso GmbH (‘UAI’), the registered office of which is in Eggenfelden (Germany), to identify the vehicles registered in Germany which are affected by the supplementary charge, and their holders, and to collect that charge.

14

After having identified the holder of the vehicle concerned by means of that vehicle’s registration plate, UAI claims from that person, by an initial letter of formal notice, the supplementary charge of HUF 14875, together with recovery fees. If payment is not made following that first letter of formal notice, the amount of the supplementary charge is raised to HUF 59500.

15

NW is the holder of a vehicle registered in Germany. On 19 December 2019, he made a short journey with that vehicle on a toll road in Hungary, before purchasing the required toll ticket.

16

By letter of formal notice of 10 March 2020, UAI requested NW to pay the supplementary charge, together with recovery fees. In the absence of any response from NW, on 13 May 2020, a second letter was sent to him in order to recover the higher supplementary charge, together with processing fees, fees to identify the holder of the vehicle, a flat-rate fee for expenses and value added tax.

17

In the main proceedings, the applicant thus seeks payment from NW of a total sum of EUR 260.76. It takes the view that the dispute is based on a contractual relationship governed by private law and states that it must comply with the rules of ordinary law for the purposes of recovering its debt.

18

The referring court is unsure as to the scope of the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 in order to determine whether proceedings such as those in the main proceedings are covered by that concept.

19

According to that court, in so far as the user of a toll road has not purchased a toll ticket, the supplementary charge must be regarded as constituting a penalty imposed unilaterally on the basis of a rule of public law and is not limited to mere consideration for a service provided, within the meaning of paragraph 36 of the judgment of 9 March 2017, Pula Parking (C‑551/15, EU:C:2017:193). The establishment and collection of that charge, which, according to that court, is of a punitive nature, should therefore be classified as acts of public authority and, consequently, excluded from the material scope of Regulation No 1215/2012.

20

In those circumstances, the Amtsgericht Lennestadt (District Court, Lennestadt, Germany) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘Is Article 1(1) of Regulation [No 1215/2012] to be interpreted as meaning that judicial proceedings brought by a State-owned company against a natural person domiciled in another Member State, for the purposes of recovering a debt, which is punitive in nature, for the unauthorised use of a toll road, come within the scope of that regulation?’

21

Under Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the Court may at any time, on a proposal by the Judge-Rapporteur, after hearing the Advocate General, decide to rule by reasoned order where the reply to a question referred may be clearly deduced from the case-law or where the answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling admits of no reasonable doubt.

22

It is appropriate to apply that provision in the context of the present reference for a preliminary ruling.

23

By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that an action to recover, through legal proceedings, a charge relating to the use of a toll road, brought by a company authorised in accordance with the law, comes within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of that provision.

24

As regards the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ set out in Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, the Court has repeatedly held that, in order to ensure, as far as possible, that the rights and obligations which derive from that regulation for the Member States and the persons to whom it applies are equal and uniform, that concept should not be interpreted as a mere reference to the internal law of a Member State. That concept must be regarded as an autonomous concept to be interpreted by reference, first, to the objectives and scheme of that regulation and, second, to the general principles which stem from the corpus of the national legal systems (judgment of 28 February 2019, Gradbeništvo Korana, C‑579/17, EU:C:2019:162, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited).

25

In order to determine whether or not a legal action comes within the scope of the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, and, consequently, whether it comes within the scope of that regulation, it is necessary to determine the nature of the legal relationships between the parties to the action and the subject matter of that action or, alternatively, the basis of the action and the detailed rules applicable to it (judgment of 16 July 2020, Movic and Others, C‑73/19, EU:C:2020:568, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).

26

Thus, although certain actions between a public authority and a person governed by private law may come within the scope of Regulation No 1215/2012 where the legal proceedings relate to acts performed iure gestionis, the position is otherwise where the public authority is acting in the exercise of its public powers (judgment of 25 March 2021, Obala i lučice, C‑307/19, EU:C:2021:236, paragraph 63 and the case-law cited).

27

The exercise of public powers by one of the parties to the case, because it exercises powers falling outside the scope of the ordinary legal rules applicable to relationships between private individuals, excludes such a case from ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (judgment of 3 September 2020, Supreme Site Services and Others, C‑186/19, EU:C:2020:638, paragraph 57 and the case-law cited).

28

Furthermore, the public purpose of certain activities does not, in itself, constitute sufficient evidence to classify them as being carried out iure imperii, in so far as they do not entail the exercise of any powers falling outside the scope of the ordinary legal rules applicable to relationships between private individuals (judgment of 3 September 2020, Supreme Site Services and Others, C‑186/19, EU:C:2020:638, paragraph 66 and the case-law cited).

29

In the present case, as regards the subject matter of the action in the main proceedings, it is apparent from the order for reference that that action concerns the recovery of a debt corresponding to a supplementary charge for the use of a toll road. Following a failure to comply with the obligation to pay the usage charge for such a road, increases in the initial amount are provided for under national legislation. The sum claimed in the present case corresponds to that supplementary charge together with other fees connected with the procedure for identifying the holder of the vehicle and the recovery. That action, brought by the applicant in the main proceedings, concerns a relationship governed by private law within the meaning of Decree No 36/2007.

30

As is apparent from the order for reference, both the amount of the usage charge at issue in the main proceedings and that of the supplementary charge are provided for under that decree, since the applicant in the main proceedings has no discretion as to whether it is appropriate to apply them. Furthermore, although the supplementary charge entails a significant increase in the sum initially due, it does not follow from the information available to the Court that it constitutes a penalty for a road traffic offence of any kind. As the applicant states in its written observations, the obligation to pay the usage charge and the supplementary charge is distinct from the power of the competent authority to impose a fine the amount of which may vary from HUF 10000 to HUF 300000 (approximately EUR 25 to EUR 830), on the basis of Paragraph 21(2) of the Law on road traffic, in the case where the owner of the vehicle fails to comply with his or her obligation to pay the tolls.

31

As regards the basis and the detailed rules for bringing the action in the main proceedings, it should be noted that the recovery of the supplementary charge is sought by the applicant in the main proceedings under the rules of ordinary law, in the context of the proceedings brought before the referring court.

32

Moreover, according to the settled case-law of the Court, proceedings come within the scope of ‘civil and commercial matters’, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, where the applicant does not grant an enforceable instrument to itself by way of derogation from the rules of ordinary law, but is merely empowered, under national law, to recover supplementary charges, together with the fees connected with that recovery and to bring legal proceedings for that purpose (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 September 2013, Sunico and Others, C‑49/12, EU:C:2013:545, paragraph 39; of 9 March 2017, Pula Parking, C‑551/15, EU:C:2017:193, paragraph 37; and of 25 March 2021, Obala i lučice, C‑307/19, EU:C:2021:236, paragraph 71).

33

It follows that neither the legal relationship existing between the parties to an action such as that at issue in the main proceedings nor the basis or the detailed rules governing such an action can be regarded as indicative of the exercise of public powers for the purposes of EU law, with the result that an action of that kind must be regarded as coming within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 and as coming within the scope of that regulation.

34

In the light of all of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters,’ within the meaning of that provision, covers an action to recover, through legal proceedings, a charge relating to the use of a toll road, brought by a company authorised in accordance with the law, which classifies the relationship arising from that usage as being governed by private law.

35

Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’, within the meaning of that provision, covers an action to recover, through legal proceedings, a charge relating to the use of a toll road, brought by a company authorised in accordance with the law, which classifies the relationship arising from that usage as being governed by private law.