Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2016:41
Date: 2016-01-21
Language of the case: Finnish
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Finland

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 21 January 2016 1. EU law — Interpretation — Texts in several languages — Uniform interpretation — Differences between the various language versions — General scheme and purpose of the rules at issue taken into account (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 6(2)) Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Action on a warranty or guarantee or other third party proceedings brought by a third party against a party to judicial proceedings before the court seised of the original proceedings and which is closely linked to those original proceedings — Jurisdiction of that court — Condition (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 6(2)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see para. 35) 2. Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted to the effect that its scope includes an action brought by a third party, in accordance with national law, against the defendant in the original proceedings, and closely linked to those original proceedings, seeking reimbursement of compensation paid by that third party to the applicant in those original proceedings, provided that the action was not instituted solely with the object of removing that defendant from the jurisdiction of the court which would be competent in the case. Recital 15 of that regulation states that, in the interests of the harmonious administration of justice, it is necessary to minimise the possibility of concurrent proceedings and to ensure that irreconcilable judgments will not be given in two Member States, while recital 12 of the regulation points out that, in addition to the defendant’s domicile, there should be alternative grounds of jurisdiction based on a close link between the court and the action or in order to facilitate the sound administration of justice. The hearing, in the course of the same proceedings, of both the original action and an action brought by a third party against one of the parties to the original action and closely linked to the original action, is such as to further the abovementioned objectives in a situation in which an action has been brought by the injured party against the insurer of the person liable for the damage and another insurer, which has already paid the injured party some compensation for his injuries, seeks reimbursement of that compensation from the first-mentioned insurer. If that were not permissible, there would be a risk of two courts, in the same case, arriving at different solutions, whose recognition and enforcement would therefore be uncertain. (see paras 38-40, 47, operative part)