Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2018:941
Date: 2018-11-22
Language of the case: Slovak
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Slovakia

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber), 22 November 2018 1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — European Small Claims Procedure — Regulation No 861/2007 — Scope — Cross-border disputes — Domicile or habitual residence of at least one of the parties in a Member State other than the Member State of the court or tribunal seised — Concept of ‘parties’ — Scope (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 861/2007, Art. 3(1)) 2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — European Small Claims Procedure — Regulation No 861/2007 — Scope — Cross-border disputes — Parties to the dispute having their domicile or their habitual residence in the same Member State as the court or tribunal seised — Not included (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 861/2007, Arts 2(1) and 3(1)) 1. Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 517/2013 of 13 May 2013, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘parties’ covers solely the applicant and the defendant in the main proceedings. In that regard, it must be noted, first, that Article 3(1) of Regulation No 861/2007 does not define the concept of ‘parties’, nor does it refer to the law of the Member States on that issue. In those circumstances, the concept of ‘parties’ referred to in Article 3(1) of that regulation must be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation within the legal order of the European Union. Regarding the general scheme of Regulation No 861/2007, it must be noted, as the referring court has done, that that regulation provides solely for the rights and obligations of the applicant and defendant in the main proceedings. It therefore follows from the general scheme of Regulation No 861/2007 that the participation of parties intervening in the disputes covered by that regulation was not envisaged. (see paras 22, 23, 26, 27, 30, operative part 1) 2. Article 2(1) and Article 3(1) of Regulation No 861/2007, as amended by Regulation No 517/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute, such as that in the main proceedings, in which the applicant and the defendant have their domicile or their habitual residence in the same Member State as the court or tribunal seised, does not come within the scope of that regulation. In this regard, it is sufficient to note that Article 2(1) of Regulation No 861/2007 explicitly limits the scope of that regulation to cross-border disputes. Article 3(1) of that regulation, as interpreted by the Court in paragraph 30 of the present judgment, defines a cross-border dispute as a dispute in which the applicant and/or the defendant has his domicile or habitual residence in a Member State other than that of the court or tribunal seised. (see paras 32, 36, operative part 2)