# C_2013141EN.01000601.xml

| 18.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — Česká spořitelna, a.s. v Gerald Feichter

(Case C-419/11) (1)

1

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Articles 5(1)(a) and 15(1) - Concepts of ‘matters relating to a contract’ and ‘contract concluded by a consumer’ - Promissory note - Aval - Guarantee provided for a credit contract)

2013/C 141/08

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Referring court

Městský soud v Praze

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Česká spořitelna, a.s.

Applicant:

Defendant: Gerald Feichter

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Městský soud v Praze — Interpretation of Articles 5(1)(a) and 15(1) 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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Concepts of ‘matters relating to a contract’ and ‘contract concluded by a consumer’ — Jurisdiction in a dispute relating to an obligation of a manager of a company having given the aval to a blank promissory note issued by that company in favour of a bank to guarantee a credit agreement — Determination of the place of performance of the obligation where the promissory note did not originally indicate the place of payment

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 15(1) 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 a natural person with close professional links to a company, such as its managing director or majority shareholder, cannot be considered to be a consumer within the meaning of that provision when he gives an aval on a promissory note issued in order to guarantee the obligations of that company under a contract for the grant of credit. Therefore, that provision does not apply for the purposes of determining the court having jurisdiction over judicial proceedings by which the payee of a promissory note, established in one Member State, brings claims under that note, which was incomplete at the date of its signature and was subsequently completed by the payee, against the giver of the aval, domiciled in another Member State. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 15(1) 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 a natural person with close professional links to a company, such as its managing director or majority shareholder, cannot be considered to be a consumer within the meaning of that provision when he gives an aval on a promissory note issued in order to guarantee the obligations of that company under a contract for the grant of credit. Therefore, that provision does not apply for the purposes of determining the court having jurisdiction over judicial proceedings by which the payee of a promissory note, established in one Member State, brings claims under that note, which was incomplete at the date of its signature and was subsequently completed by the payee, against the giver of the aval, domiciled in another Member State.

| 2. | Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 applies for the purposes of determining the court having jurisdiction over judicial proceedings by which the payee of a promissory note, established in one Member State, brings claims under that note, which was incomplete at the date of its signature and was subsequently completed by the payee, against the giver of the aval, domiciled in another Member State. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 applies for the purposes of determining the court having jurisdiction over judicial proceedings by which the payee of a promissory note, established in one Member State, brings claims under that note, which was incomplete at the date of its signature and was subsequently completed by the payee, against the giver of the aval, domiciled in another Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.

1

---