Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2015:556
Date: 2015-09-08
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 (Fourth Chamber), 23 December 2015 1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Article 15(1) of the regulation — Restrictive interpretation — Cumulative conditions for its application (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 15(1)) 2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Scope of Article 15(1)(c) of the regulation — Contract not coming within the scope of a commercial or professional activity ‘directed’ by the professional ‘to’ the Member State of the consumer’s domicile — Close link with an earlier contract concluded between the same parties and constituting a direct extension of that activity — Included (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Arts 15(1)(c) and 16(1)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 24, 32) 2. Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, read in conjunction with Article 16(1) of that regulation, must, in so far as it relates to the contract concluded in the context of a commercial or professional activity ‘directed’ by the professional ‘to’ the Member State of the consumer’s domicile, be interpreted as meaning that it may be applied to a contract concluded between a consumer and a professional, which on its own does not come within the scope of the commercial or professional activity ‘directed’ by that professional ‘to’ the Member State of the consumer’s domicile, but which is closely linked to a contract concluded beforehand by those same parties in the context of such an activity. It is for the national court to determine whether the constituent elements of that link are present, in particular whether the parties to both of those contracts are identical in law or in fact, whether the economic objective of those contracts concerning the same specific subject-matter is identical and whether the second contract complements the first contract in that it seeks to make it possible for the economic objective of that first contract to be achieved. That could be the case, in particular, for a transaction-management contract which was concluded as a direct extension of such a commercial or professional activity and which is complementary to a brokerage contract, concluded previously by those same parties with a view to the purchase by the buyers residing in a Member State of an apartment in the broker’s Member State of residence, in that the transaction-management contract seeks to make it possible for the economic objective of the brokerage contract to be achieved, that is to say, the effective enjoyment of the apartment. Even though it is true that there is no legal interdependence between the brokerage contract and the transaction-management contract, it must be held that there is an economic link between those two contracts. (see paras 35-37, 40, operative part)