Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2011:209
Date: 2011-04-05
Language of the case: Dutch
Subject matter: Approximation of laws;Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Judgment 1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 44/2001 – Ambit – Civil and commercial matters – Definition (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 1) 2. Approximation of laws – Respect for intellectual property rights – Directive 2004/48 – Legal costs (European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/48, Art. 14) 1. The concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ in Article 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 that regulation applies to the recognition and enforcement of a decision of a court or tribunal that contains an order to pay a fine in order to ensure compliance with a judgment given in a civil and commercial matter. Even though that fine which must be paid to a Member State is recovered automatically, and the actual recovery is made by the public authorities, those aspects cannot be regarded as decisive as regards the nature of the right to enforcement. The nature of that right depends on the nature of the subjective right, for infringement of which enforcement was ordered. The right to exploit exclusively an invention protected by its patent is clearly covered by civil and commercial matters within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation No 44/2001. (see paras 42, 44, operative part 1) 2. The costs relating to an exequatur procedure brought in a Member State, in the course of which the recognition and enforcement is sought of a judgment given in another Member State in proceedings seeking to enforce an intellectual property right, fall within Article 14 of Directive 2004/48 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. That interpretation is consistent with the general objective of Directive 2004/48, which aims to approximate the legislative systems of the Member States in order to ensure a high, equivalent and homogeneous level of intellectual property protection, and with the specific aim of Article 14 which is to prevent the injured party from being deterred from bringing proceedings in order to protect intellectual property rights. In accordance with those objectives, the author of the infringement of the intellectual property rights must generally bear all the financial consequences of his conduct. (see paras 49-50, operative part 2)