Case C-645/11

Land Berlin

v

Ellen Mirjam Sapir and Others

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof)

‛Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Articles 1(1) and 6(1) — Concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ — Undue payment made by a State entity — Claim for recovery of that payment in legal proceedings — Determination of the court having jurisdiction in the case where claims are connected — Close connection between the claims — Defendant domiciled in a non-member State’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 11 April 2013

1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Scope — Civil and commercial matters — Concept — Action for recovery of an amount unduly paid by a public body in administrative proceedings to compensate for harm caused by a totalitarian regime — Included

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 1(1))

2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — More than one defendant — Jurisdiction of the court of one of the co-defendants — Strict interpretation — Condition — Connection — Concept of connection

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 6(1))

3. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — More than one defendant — Jurisdiction of the court of one of the co-defendants — Condition — Connection — Claims brought against several defendants domiciled in other Member States, who rely on rights to additional compensation which must be determined on a uniform basis — Included — Different legal bases between the claims — No effect

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 6(1))

4. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — More than one defendant — Jurisdiction of the court of one of the co-defendants — Not applicable to defendants who are not domiciled in a Member State

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 6(1))

1.  Article 1(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 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’ includes an action for recovery of an amount unduly paid in the case where a public body is required, by an authority established by a law providing compensation in respect of acts of persecution carried out by a totalitarian regime, to pay to a victim, by way of compensation, part of the proceeds of the sale of land, has, as the result of an unintentional error, paid to that person the entire sale price, and subsequently brings legal proceedings seeking to recover the amount unduly paid.

   (see para. 38, operative part 1)

2.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 40-43, 53)

3.  Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that there is a close connection, within the meaning of that provision, between claims lodged against several defendants domiciled in other Member States in the case where the latter, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, rely on rights to additional compensation which it is necessary to determine on a uniform basis.

   Even if the legal basis relied on in support of the claim against a defendant is different from that on which the action against the other defendants is based, the need to give a ruling on a uniform basis exists where the claims relied on in the various actions are all directed at the same interest.

   It does not appear from the wording of Article 6(1) of that regulation that there is a requirement for the application of that provision that the legal bases of the actions brought against the various defendants is the same. Such identity is only one relevant factor among others.

   (see paras 44, 47, 48, operative part 2)

4.  Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that it is not intended to apply to defendants who are not domiciled in another Member State, in the case where they are sued in proceedings brought against several defendants, some of who are also persons domiciled in the European Union.

   (see para. 56, operative part 3)

Case C-645/11

Land Berlin

v

Ellen Mirjam Sapir and Others

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof)

‛Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Articles 1(1) and 6(1) — Concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ — Undue payment made by a State entity — Claim for recovery of that payment in legal proceedings — Determination of the court having jurisdiction in the case where claims are connected — Close connection between the claims — Defendant domiciled in a non-member State’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 11 April 2013

1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Scope — Civil and commercial matters — Concept — Action for recovery of an amount unduly paid by a public body in administrative proceedings to compensate for harm caused by a totalitarian regime — Included

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 1(1))

2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — More than one defendant — Jurisdiction of the court of one of the co-defendants — Strict interpretation — Condition — Connection — Concept of connection

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 6(1))

3. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — More than one defendant — Jurisdiction of the court of one of the co-defendants — Condition — Connection — Claims brought against several defendants domiciled in other Member States, who rely on rights to additional compensation which must be determined on a uniform basis — Included — Different legal bases between the claims — No effect

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 6(1))

4. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — More than one defendant — Jurisdiction of the court of one of the co-defendants — Not applicable to defendants who are not domiciled in a Member State

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 6(1))

1.  Article 1(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 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’ includes an action for recovery of an amount unduly paid in the case where a public body is required, by an authority established by a law providing compensation in respect of acts of persecution carried out by a totalitarian regime, to pay to a victim, by way of compensation, part of the proceeds of the sale of land, has, as the result of an unintentional error, paid to that person the entire sale price, and subsequently brings legal proceedings seeking to recover the amount unduly paid.

   (see para. 38, operative part 1)

2.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 40-43, 53)

3.  Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that there is a close connection, within the meaning of that provision, between claims lodged against several defendants domiciled in other Member States in the case where the latter, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, rely on rights to additional compensation which it is necessary to determine on a uniform basis.

   Even if the legal basis relied on in support of the claim against a defendant is different from that on which the action against the other defendants is based, the need to give a ruling on a uniform basis exists where the claims relied on in the various actions are all directed at the same interest.

   It does not appear from the wording of Article 6(1) of that regulation that there is a requirement for the application of that provision that the legal bases of the actions brought against the various defendants is the same. Such identity is only one relevant factor among others.

   (see paras 44, 47, 48, operative part 2)

4.  Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that it is not intended to apply to defendants who are not domiciled in another Member State, in the case where they are sued in proceedings brought against several defendants, some of who are also persons domiciled in the European Union.

   (see para. 56, operative part 3)