Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2007:595
Date: 2007-10-11
Language of the case: Swedish
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Concepts: Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments – Civil and commercial matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Sweden

Summary of the Judgment Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 44/2001 – Special jurisdiction – More than one defendant (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 6(1)) Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that claims brought against a number of defendants have different legal bases does not preclude application of that provision. Although the wording of that provision does not show that the conditions laid down for its application include a requirement that the actions brought against different defendants should have identical legal bases, it must however be ascertained whether, between various claims brought by the same plaintiff against different defendants, there is a connection of such a kind that it is expedient to determine those actions together in order to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. For decisions to be regarded as contradictory, it is not sufficient for there to be a divergence in the outcome of the dispute. In addition, that provision applies where claims brought against different defendants are connected when the proceedings are instituted, to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings, without there being any further need to establish separately that the claims were not brought with the sole object of ousting the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State where one of the defendants is domiciled. (see paras 38-40, 47, 52, 54, operative part 1-2)