Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2016:176
Date: 2016-03-17
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling;Reference for a preliminary ruling - decision unnecessary
Origin: Romania

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 17 March 2016 1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Scope — Dispute between a defendant domiciled in a Member State and an applicant from of a third country — Included (Council Regulation No 44/2001) 2. 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) 3. 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 — Contract containing a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a third country — No effect (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Arts 22 to 24) 4. 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 — Contract for the assignment of marks containing a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a third country — Jurisdiction prohibited from declaring of its own motion that it does not have jurisdiction (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Arts 22 to 24) 1. Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is applicable in a dispute between a defendant domiciled in a Member State and an applicant from of a third country. (para. 20) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 21) 3. Articles 23(5) and 24 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, in a dispute concerning the non-performance of a contractual obligation, in which the applicant has brought proceedings before the courts of the Member State in which the defendant has its seat, the jurisdiction of those courts may stem from Article 24 of that regulation, where the defendant does not dispute their jurisdiction, even though the contract between the two parties contains a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a third country. The second sentence of Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 determines that there is no tacit prorogation of jurisdiction of the court seised where the defendant contests the jurisdiction, thereby expressing his intention not to accept that court’s jurisdiction, or where the dispute is one in respect of which Article 22 of that regulation provides for rules on exclusive jurisdiction. Since the prorogation of jurisdiction by an agreement on jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 23 of Regulation No 44/2001 is not included amongst the exceptions laid down in the second sentence of Article 24, neither the general scheme nor the objectives of that regulation provide grounds for the view that the parties are prevented from submitting their dispute to a court other than that stipulated in the agreement. This reasoning applies both to agreements conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a Member State and to those in favour of the courts of a third country, since the tacit prorogation of jurisdiction by virtue of the first sentence of Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 is based on a deliberate choice made by the parties to the dispute regarding jurisdiction. (see paras 22-25, operative part 1) 4. Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as precluding — in a dispute between parties to a contract which imposes on an undertaking established in a Member State the obligation to assign rights to a trade mark to an undertaking with its seat in a third country and which contains a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a third country — the court of the Member State in which the defendant has its seat, which has been seised, from declaring of its own motion that it does not have jurisdiction, even though the defendant does not contest the jurisdiction of that court. First, the presence of a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a third country does not preclude the application of Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001. Secondly, where the rules on exclusive jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 22 of that regulation do not apply, the court seised must declare itself to have jurisdiction where the defendant enters an appearance and does not contest that court’s jurisdiction, since entering an appearance in that way amounts to a tacit prorogation of jurisdiction for the purpose of Article 24 of the regulation. (see paras 31, 33, 36, operative part 2)