Opinion of the Court — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2303
Date: 2014-10-14
Language of the case: Bulgarian;Czech;Danish;German;Greek;English;Estonian;Finnish;French;Hungarian;Italian;Latvian;Lithuanian;Maltese;Dutch;Polish;Portuguese;Romanian;Slovak;Slovenian;Spanish;Swedish
Court formation: Grand Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Request for an Opinion - agreement compatible

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 27 February 2014 1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Appearance by the defendant without contesting the jurisdiction of the court seised — Violation of jurisdiction rules — No effect (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 24) 2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Lis pendens — Court second seised lacking exclusive jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the court first seised established — Concept — Court not declining jurisdiction of its own motion and the parties failing to contest it prior to lodging the defence on the merits — Included (Council Regulation No 44, Art. 27(2)) 1. Article 24, first sentence, of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters provides for a rule of jurisdiction based on the entering of an appearance by the defendant in respect of all disputes where the jurisdiction of the court seised is not derived from other provisions of that regulation. That provision applies also in cases where the court has been seised in breach of the provisions of that regulation and implies that the entering of an appearance by the defendant may be considered to be a tacit acceptance of the jurisdiction of the court seised and thus a prorogation of that court’s jurisdiction. (see para. 34) 2. Article 27(2) 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, except in the situation where the court second seised has exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of that regulation, the jurisdiction of the court first seised must be regarded as being established, within the meaning of that provision, if that court has not declined jurisdiction of its own motion and none of the parties has contested its jurisdiction prior to or up to the time at which a position is adopted which is regarded in national procedural law as being the first defence on the substance submitted before that court. The interpretation of Article 27(2) of that regulation, according to which, in order to establish the jurisdiction of the court first seised within the meaning of that provision, it is necessary that that court has impliedly or expressly accepted jurisdiction by a judgment which has become final would, by increasing the risk of parallel proceedings, deprive the rules intended to resolve situations of lis pendens, laid down by that regulation, of all their effectiveness. Additionally, where the court first seised has not declined jurisdiction of its own motion and no objection of lack of jurisdiction has been raised before it, the fact that the court second seised declines jurisdiction cannot result in a negative conflict of jurisdiction since the jurisdiction of the court first seised can no longer be contested. (see paras 41, 43, 45, operative part)