Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2145
Date: 2014-09-04
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Lithuania

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 4 September 2014 1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Scope — Civil and commercial matters — Concept — Action for the payment of a debt based on the provision of carriage services brought by the insolvency administrator of an insolvent undertaking in the course of insolvency proceedings opened in one Member State and directed against the recipient of those services, established in another Member State — Included — Regulation No 1346/2000 not applicable (Council Regulations No 1346/2000, Art. 3(1), and No 44/2001, Art. 1(1) and (2)(b)) 2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Relations with conventions on particular matters — Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) — Whether the convention is applicable — Determination by the national court (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 71) 1. Article 1(1) 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 an action for the payment of a debt based on the provision of carriage services taken by the insolvency administrator of an insolvent undertaking in the course of insolvency proceedings opened in one Member State and taken against a service recipient established in another Member State comes under the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of that provision. The decisive criterion adopted by the Court to identify the area within which an action falls is not the procedural context of which that action is part, but the legal basis thereof. According to that approach, it must be determined whether the right or the obligation on which the action is based finds its source in the common rules of civil and commercial law or in the derogating rules specific to insolvency proceedings. An action for the payment of a debt arising out of the provision of services in implementation of a contract for carriage could be brought by the creditor itself before its divestment by the opening of insolvency proceedings relating to it and, in that situation, the action would be governed by the rules concerning jurisdiction applicable in civil and commercial matters. The fact that, after the opening of insolvency proceedings against a service provider, the action for payment is taken by the insolvency administrator appointed in the course of those proceedings and that the latter acts in the interest of the creditors does not substantially alter the nature of the debt relied on, which continues to be subject, in terms of the substance of the matter, to rules of law which remain unchanged. Such an action does not therefore have a direct link with the insolvency proceedings opened in relation to the applicant. Accordingly, and with it being necessary to examine whether the action is closely connected with the insolvency proceedings, such an action must be regarded as not being covered by Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 and, following the same reasoning, as not concerning bankruptcy or winding-up for the purposes of Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001. (see paras 27-32, operative part 1) 2. Article 71 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 situation where a dispute falls within the scope of both that regulation and the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR), signed in Geneva on 19 May 1956, as amended by the Protocol signed in Geneva on 5 July 1978, a Member State may, in accordance with Article 71(1) of that regulation, apply the rules concerning jurisdiction laid down in Article 31(1) of that convention. It is for the national court hearing an action for payment relating to carriage services to determine whether those services meet the conditions for the application of the CMR, as set out in Article 1 thereof. (see paras 36, 42, operative part 2)