Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2018:805
Date: 2018-10-04
Language of the case: Polish
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Poland

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 4 October 2018 1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 1215/2012 — Scope — Matters excluded — Bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings — Meaning — Actions deriving directly from insolvency proceedings and closely connected with them — Applicability of Regulation No 1346/2000 (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Art. 1(2)(b); Council Regulation No 1346/2000) 2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 1215/2012 — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract — Meaning — Actio pauliana brought by the person entitled to a debt arising under a contract — Included (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Art. 7(1)(a)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 30, 31) 2. In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, an actio pauliana,whereby the person entitled to a debt arising under a contract requests that an act by which his debtor has transferred an asset to a third party and which is allegedly detrimental to his rights be declared ineffective in relation to the creditor, is covered by the rule of international jurisdiction provided for in Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. As the Court has consistently held, the application of this rule of special jurisdiction presupposes the establishment of a legal obligation freely consented to by one person towards another and on which the claimant’s action is based (see, to that effect, judgments of 20 January 2005, Engler, C‑27/02, EU:C:2005:33, paragraph 51; of 18 July 2013, ÖFAB, C‑147/12, EU:C:2013:490, paragraph 33; and of 21 January 2016, ERGO Insurance and Gjensidige Baltic, C‑359/14 and C‑475/14, EU:C:2016:40, paragraph 44). The actio pauliana is based on the creditor’s personal claim against the debtor and seeks to protect whatever security he may have over the debtor’s estate (judgments of 10 January 1990, Reichert and Kockler, C‑115/88, EU:C:1990:3, paragraph 12, and of 26 March 1992, Reichert and Kockler, C‑261/90, EU:C:1992:149, paragraph 17). It thus preserves the interests of the creditor with a view in particular to a subsequent enforcement of the debtor’s obligations (judgment of 26 March 1992, Reichert and Kockler, C‑261/90, EU:C:1992:149, paragraph 28). By this action the creditor seeks a declaration that the transfer of assets by the debtor to a third party has caused detriment to the creditor’s rights deriving from the binding nature of the contract and which correspond with the obligations freely consented to by the debtor. The cause of this action therefore lies essentially in the breach of these obligations towards the creditor to which the debtor agreed. It is thus necessary that in addition to the forum of the defendant’s domicile, there should be a supplementary ground of jurisdiction, namely that prescribed by Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 1215/2012, such jurisdiction meeting, with regard to the contractual origin of the relationship between the creditor and debtor, both the requirement for legal certainty and foreseeability and the aim to facilitate the sound administration of justice. (see paras 39-41, 43, 44, 49, operative part)