Qorti tal-Appell; 2019-12-16; eHealth Limited (C68844) v. Sergio Giglio, Bruno Giglio and S.S. Giovanni e Paolo S.r.l. u Permira Advisers Holding Limited, Permira Advisers LLP, Pantheon Holdco Limited u b’digriet tas-17 ta’ Settembru, 2019, stante li s-soċjetà Pantheon Holdco Limited bidlet isimha, l-atti ġew trasfużi f’isem is-soċjetà Althea Group SpA kif rappreżentata mill-mandatarju speċjali tagħha l-Avukat Antoine Cremona, u Permira Associati SpA; 351/2017
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:MT:ACIV:2019:119682
Date: 2019-12-16
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Malta

82019MT1216(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of lis pendens influencing the continuation of Maltese proceedings resolved by the Qorti tal-Appell (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’).
Several companies (hereinafter ‘the plaintiffs’) applied before the Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) for compensation for damages allegedly caused by a breach of contractual obligations by the defendants. The defendants raised objections relying (a) on Article 29(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) according to which ‘any court other than the court first seised shall of its own motion stay its proceedings’, since similar proceedings had already commenced before a court in Italy, and (b) on Article 30(1) of the same Regulation, according to which ‘where related actions are pending in the courts of different Member States, any court other than the court first seised may stay its proceedings’.
It was not disputed that other proceedings were being held in Italy. However, the plaintiffs replied that the proceedings (i) neither have the same cause of action, since the current claim regards the damages whilst the proceedings in Italy regards other contractual matters, (ii) nor are held between the same parties.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the defendants' objections by upholding the plaintiffs’ view that the two proceedings are not being held between the same parties, since one of the plaintiffs is not even party to the Italian proceedings and, therefore, the Italian judgment cannot have an effect of res judicata against (all) parties to the Maltese proceedings. There is no risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings.
The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal arguing by wrongful interpretation of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The Court of Appeal assessed the evidence of the case, the obligations between the parties and held that for the purposes of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), the proceedings in Italy and the current Maltese proceedings must be understood as involving the same cause of action as they originate in the same contractual disputes.
When it comes to the identification of the parties, the Court of Appeal ascertained that one of the plaintiffs in the Maltese proceedings is a subsidiary of a party in the Italian proceedings. The defendants' argument that the parties are not perfectly identical is correct. However, the Court of Appeal held that although the application of Article 29(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) requires that parties must be 'identical', this identity is not destroyed by the mere fact of there being separate legal entities involved. The fact that the parties must be 'identical' does not necessarily mean that two separate legal entities cannot be 'identical' for the purpose of this Regulation. In fact, there is a very close connection between the plaintiffs' company in the Maltese proceedings and the company which is a party to the Italian proceedings (companies founded by the same shareholders, identical company management, etc.). It must be concluded that both the Italian and Maltese proceedings concern the same parties, which is supported also by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Therefore, the defendants' appeal must be granted, the first instance conclusion shall be annulled, and, conversely to the first instance conclusion, the Maltese proceedings shall be stayed in compliance with Article 29(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
(1) 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.