Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2013:231
Date: 2013-04-11
Language of the case: Danish
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Denmark

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 12 September 2013 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 treated as equivalent to those of the Brussels Convention — Interpretation of those provisions in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice relating to 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 — Scope — Civil and commercial matters — Concept — Action brought by a public authority of one Member State, against a natural and legal person resident in another Member State, for damages in respect of the latter’s involvement in tax fraud — Included — Conditions (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 1(1)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see para. 32) 2. The concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of 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 it covers an action whereby a public authority of one Member State claims, as against natural and legal persons resident in another Member State, damages for loss caused by a tortious conspiracy to commit value added tax fraud in the first Member State. In such a situation, the legal relationship between the public authority and the conspiracy to defraud is not a legal relationship based on public law, in this instance tax law, involving the exercise of powers of a public authority, but is governed by the law of tort of that Member State. However, it is for the referring court to ascertain whether the public authority was in the same position as a person governed by private law. (see paras 37, 40, 41, 43, 44, operative part)