# C_2017277EN.01001601.xml

| 21.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Saale Kareda v Stefan Benkö

(Case C-249/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 7(1) - Concepts of ‘matters relating to a contract’ and of a ‘contract for the provision of services’ - Recourse claim between jointly and severally liable debtors under a credit agreement - Determination of the place of performance of the credit agreement))

(2017/C 277/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Saale Kareda

Applicant:

Defendant: Stefan Benkö

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 7(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 a recourse claim between jointly and severally liable debtors under a credit agreement constitutes a ‘matter relating to a contract’, as referred to in that provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 7(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 a recourse claim between jointly and severally liable debtors under a credit agreement constitutes a ‘matter relating to a contract’, as referred to in that provision.

| 2. | The second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that a credit agreement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, between a credit institution and two jointly and severally liable debtors, must be classified as a ‘contract for the provision of services’ for the purposes of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that a credit agreement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, between a credit institution and two jointly and severally liable debtors, must be classified as a ‘contract for the provision of services’ for the purposes of that provision.

| 3. | The second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a credit institution has granted a loan to two jointly and severally liable debtors, the ‘place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided’, within the meaning of that provision, is, unless otherwise agreed, the place where that institution has its registered office, and this also applies with a view to determining the territorial jurisdiction of the court called upon to hear and determine an action for recourse between those joint debtors. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a credit institution has granted a loan to two jointly and severally liable debtors, the ‘place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided’, within the meaning of that provision, is, unless otherwise agreed, the place where that institution has its registered office, and this also applies with a view to determining the territorial jurisdiction of the court called upon to hear and determine an action for recourse between those joint debtors.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.

1

---