Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2320
Date: 2014-10-23
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Rome Convention of 19 June 1980
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) 23 October 2014 1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations — Applicable law in the absence of a choice made by the parties — Connecting factors — Presumption concerning contracts for the carriage of goods — Scope — Commission contract for the carriage of goods — Included — Conditions — Contract having as its principal purpose the transport of goods (Rome Convention of 19 June 1980, Art. 4(4)) 2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations — Applicable law in the absence of a choice made by the parties — Connecting factors — Contract for the carriage of goods — Applicable law not able to be fixed under Article 4(4) of the Convention — Determination in accordance with the general rule — Law of the country with which the contract is most closely connected (Rome Convention of 19 June 1980, Art. 4(2) and (4); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 593/2008, Art. 5) 3. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations — Applicable law in the absence of a choice made by the parties — Connecting factors — Contract falling within the scope of Article 4(2) of the Convention — Obligation to determine the applicable law in accordance with the presumption laid down in that article — Exception — Presence of a closer connection with another country — Determination by the national court (Rome Convention of 19 June 1980, Art. 4(2)) 1. The last sentence of Article 4(4) of the Rome Convention of 19 June 1980 on the Law applicable to Contractual Obligations must be interpreted as applying to a commission contract for the carriage of goods solely when the main purpose of the contract consists in the actual transport of the goods concerned, which it is for the referring court to verify. The last sentence of Article 4(4) of that convention allows other contracts to be equated with contracts for the carriage of goods, since one of the purposes of that provision is to extend the application of the second sentence of Article 4(4) to contracts which, despite being categorised as contracts other than a contract for the carriage of goods under national law, have as their principal purpose the carriage of goods. In order to ascertain that purpose, it is necessary to take into consideration the objective of the contractual relationship and, consequently, all the obligations of the party who effects the performance which is characteristic of the contract. The same holds true for a commission contract for the carriage of goods which is a separate contract the characteristic performance of which consists in organising the carriage of goods. As the carriage of goods per se is not its principal purpose, a commission contract for the carriage of goods cannot be considered to be a contract for the carriage of goods. However, taking account of the purpose of the contractual relationship, the actual performance effected and all of the obligations of the party who must effect the characteristic performance, and not the parties’ categorisation of the contract, a commission contract for the carriage of goods may turn out to relate to the specific nature of a contract for the carriage of goods if its principal purpose is the transport as such of the goods.. It is for the referring court, in examining the overall circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings, namely the contractual stipulations reflecting the economic and commercial reality of the relations existing between the parties and the purpose of Article 4(4) of the Rome Convention, to ascertain whether and to what extent the commission contract for the carriage of goods in question has as its principal purpose the actual carriage of the goods concerned. (see paras 26-28, 31, 32, operative part 1) 2. Article 4(4) of the Rome Convention of 19 June 1980 on the Law applicable to Contractual Obligations must be interpreted as meaning that, where the law applicable to a contract for the carriage of goods cannot be fixed under the second sentence of that provision, it must be determined in accordance with the general rule laid down in Article 4(1), that is to say, the law governing that contract is that of the country with which it is most closely connected. It would be contrary to both the wording and logic of Article 4(4) of that convention to apply the presumption laid down in Article 4(2) to a contract where it is established that the presumption laid down therein cannot apply, since the criteria laid down in the second sentence of Article 4(4) are not fulfilled. This interpretation is, moreover, compatible with the wording of the rules of conflict pertaining to contracts for the carriage of goods provided for in Regulation No 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations, Article 5 of which precludes applying the law of the country in which the carrier has his habitual residence to contracts for the carriage of goods where the criteria for establishing connection are not fulfilled and provides expressly that, in that case, the law of the country where the place of delivery as agreed by the parties is situated must apply. (see paras 38, 39, 42, operative part 2) 3. Article 4(2) of the Rome Convention of 19 June 1980 on the Law applicable to Contractual Obligations must be interpreted as meaning that, where it is argued that a contract has a closer connection with a country other than that the law of which is designated by the presumption laid down therein, the national court must compare the connections existing between that contract and, on the one hand, the country whose law is designated by the presumption and, on the other, the other country concerned. In so doing, the national court must take account of the circumstances as a whole, including the existence of other contracts connected with the contract in question. The referring court must conduct an overall assessment of all the objective factors characterising the contractual relationship and determine which of those factors are, in its view, most significant. (see paras 49, 51, operative part 3)