Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2424
Date: 2014-12-09
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 11 June 2015 1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Jurisdiction of the national court — Establishing and assessing the facts of the dispute — Necessity of a question referred and relevance of the questions raised — Assessment by the national court (Art. 267 TFEU) 2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Reference to the Court — Need for a preliminary ruling by the national court in order to give judgment — Concept — Interpretation of the applicable procedural provisions of EU law — Included (Art. 263, second para, TFEU) 3. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Service of judicial or extrajudicial documents — Regulation No 1393/2007 — Scope — Civil and commercial matters — Definition — Independent interpretation (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1393/2007, Art. 1(1)) 4. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Service of judicial or extrajudicial documents — Regulation No 1393/2007 — Objectives (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1393/2007) 5. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Service of judicial or extrajudicial documents — Regulation No 1393/2007 — Scope — Civil and commercial matters — Concept — Action for compensation bought by private persons who are holders of government bonds against the issuing State — Included (European Parliament and Council Regulation 1393/2007, Art. 1(1)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 25-29) 2. The concept ‘give judgment’, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, must be interpreted broadly in order to prevent many procedural questions from being regarded as inadmissible and from being unable to be the subject of interpretation by the Court. That concept must therefore be understood as encompassing the whole of the procedure leading to the judgment of the referring court so that the Court of Justice is able to interpret all procedural provisions of EU law that the referring court is required to apply in order to give judgment. (see para. 30) 3. Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1393/2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters and repealing Regulation No 1348/2000 provides that that regulation is applicable to civil and commercial matters. However, the regulation does not define the content and scope or the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ or that of ‘acta iure imperii’ within the meaning of that provision. Therefore, the concept of ‘civil and commercial’ must be regarded as an independent concept and that it must be interpreted by referring, in particular, to the objectives and scheme of that regulation. (see paras 37-39) 4. See the text of the decision. (see para. 40) 5. Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1393/2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters, and repealing Regulation No 1348/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that legal actions for compensation for disturbance of ownership and property rights, contractual performance and damages brought by private persons who are holders of government bonds against the issuing State, fall within the scope of that regulation in so far as it does not appear that they are manifestly outside the concept of civil or commercial matters. In order to determine whether Regulation No 1393/2007 is applicable, it suffices that the court hearing the case concludes that it is not manifest that the action brought before it falls outside the definition of civil and commercial matters. The question whether a document instituting proceedings concerns civil and commercial matters within the meaning of that regulation must necessarily be resolved even before the parties to the proceedings other than the applicant have been served with that document, since the methods of service of that document depend specifically on the answer to that question. In those circumstances, the court concerned must limit itself to a preliminary review of the available evidence, which is inevitably incomplete, in order to decide whether the action brought before it is a civil or commercial matter or a matter not covered by that regulation in accordance with Article 1(1) thereof, the result of that review being, of course, without prejudice to subsequent decisions that the court hearing the case will be required to make as regards, in particular, its own jurisdiction and the substance of the case concerned. As regards actions for compensation brought by private persons who are holders of government bonds against the issuing State, it must be determined whether the legal relationship between the parties is manifestly characterised by an exercise of public powers on the part of the debtor State, in that it entails the exercise of powers falling outside the scope of the ordinary legal rules applicable to relationships between private individuals. However, the issue of bonds does not necessarily presuppose the exercise of powers falling outside the scope of the ordinary legal rules applicable to relationships between individuals. Furthermore, first, as regards the possibility of exchanging the government bonds, the fact that that possibility was introduced by a law is not, in itself, decisive to conclude that the State acted in the exercise of State authority, and, second, it is not obvious that the adoption of that law led directly and immediately to changes to the financial conditions of the securities in question and therefore caused the damage to the persons concerned. (see paras 44-46, 49, 51, 53, 55-57, 59, operative part)