Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2020:971
Date: 2020-11-26
Language of the case: Croatian

Summary C-307/19 — 1 
Case C-307/19 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
  
Date lodged:  
11 April 2019 
Referring court:  
Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske (Commercial Court of 
Appeal, Croatia) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
26 March 2019 
Appellant:  
Obala i lučice d.o.o. 
Respondent: 
NLB Leasing d.o.o. 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Civil proceedings to recover the principal amount of HRK 84 owed as payment 
for a daily parking ticket for a car parked on the public highway in Zadar (Croatia) 
on 30 June 2012. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
Request for interpretation of EU law under Article 267 TFEU. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Are notaries authorised to effect service of documents under Regulation 
(EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-307/19 
 
2  
extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters when they serve 
notice of their decisions in cases in which Regulation No 1215/2012 does 
not apply, bearing in mind that, in Croatia, notaries acting within the 
framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement 
proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’ do not fall within the concept 
of ‘court’ within the meaning of Regulation No 1215/2012? In other words, 
given that notaries do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ for the purposes 
of Regulation No 1215/2012, are they able, when acting within the 
framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement 
proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’, to apply the rules governing 
service of documents established in Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007? 
2. Can parking in the street and on the public highway, where the right to 
collect payment is conferred by the Zakon o sigurnosti prometa na cestama 
(Law on Road Safety) and the legislation governing the performance of 
municipal activities as public authority activities, be considered a civil 
matter within the meaning 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 (recast), which governs the question of the jurisdiction 
of the courts and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and 
commercial matters, especially having regard to the fact that, where a 
vehicle is found without a parking ticket or with an invalid ticket, it is 
immediately subject to a requirement to pay for a daily ticket, as though it 
had been parked for the whole day, regardless of the precise length of time 
for which it was parked, meaning that this daily parking charge has a 
punitive effect, and that in some Member States this type of parking 
constitutes a traffic offence?  
3. In court proceedings of the type referred to above concerning parking in the 
street and on the public highway, where the right to collect payment is 
conferred by the Law on Road Safety and the legislation governing the 
performance of municipal activities as public authority activities, can the 
courts effect service of a document on the defendants in another Member 
State under Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of 
judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters? 
If, based on the above questions, this type of parking is ruled to be a civil 
matter, the following further questions are referred. 
4. In the present case, there is a presumption that a contract is concluded in 
respect of the aforesaid on-street parking in a space designated by horizontal 
and/or vertical markings; in other words, by parking there one is deemed to 
enter into a contract, and if one fails to pay the correct hourly parking charge 
one has to pay for a daily ticket. The question is therefore raised as to 
whether that presumption, that parking gives rise to a contract and entails 
OBALA I LUČICE 
 
3 
consent to pay for a daily ticket if one does not buy a ticket in accordance 
with the hourly parking tariff or if the parking period on the ticket has 
expired, is contrary to the basic stipulations on the provision of services in 
Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the 
other provisions in the EU acquis. 
5. In the present case the parking took place in Zadar, Croatia, and there is 
therefore a connection between that contract and the Croatian courts. But 
does this parking constitute a ‘service’ within the meaning of Article 7(1) of 
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, bearing in mind that the concept of service 
implies that the party who provides the service carries out a particular 
activity, that is, that the said party carries out that particular activity in return 
for remuneration. The question is therefore whether the activity carried out 
by the appellant is sufficient for it to be considered a service. If the Croatian 
courts do not have special jurisdiction under Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) 
No 1215/2012, jurisdiction to hear the case would lie with the court of the 
respondent’s domicile. 
6. Can parking in the street and on the public highway, where the right to 
collect payment is conferred by the Law on Road Safety and the legislation 
governing the performance of municipal activities as public authority 
activities, and charges are levied only during a specified period during the 
day, be considered a tenancy agreement for immovable property under 
Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012?  
7. If the aforementioned presumption that the parking entails the conclusion of 
a contract (fourth question referred) cannot be applied in this case, can this 
type of parking, where authority to collect parking charges is conferred by 
the Law on Road Safety and a daily ticket must be purchased if a ticket for 
the parking period is not purchased in advance or if the parking ticket has 
expired, be deemed to constitute a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-
delict within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012? 
8. In the present case, the parking took place before Croatia joined the 
European Union, specifically at 13.02 on 30 June 2012. Therefore, the 
question is asked whether the regulations governing applicable law, namely 
Regulation No 593/2008 or Regulation No 864/2007, apply in the present 
case, having regard to their temporal validity. 
If the Court of Justice of the European Union has jurisdiction to provide a 
response on the application of the material law, the following question is 
referred. 
9. Is the presumption that this type of parking gives rise to a contract and 
entails consent to pay for a daily ticket if one does not pay the hourly 
parking charges or if the ticket expires, contrary to the basic stipulations on 
the provision of services in Article 56 TFEU and to the other provisions of 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-307/19 
 
4  
the acquis, irrespective of whether the owner of the vehicle is a natural or a 
legal person? In other words, for the purposes of determining the material 
law, can the provisions of Article 4 of Regulation No 593/2008 apply in this 
case (given that there is no evidence in the proceedings to show that the 
parties came to an agreement on the applicable law)? 
– If a contract is held to exist, would it be a contract for the provision of 
services in the present case, that is to say, can the parking contract be 
considered a service within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of 
Regulation No 593/2008?  
– In the alternative, could the parking be considered to constitute a 
tenancy agreement in accordance with Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation 
No 593/2008? 
– In the alternative, if the parking comes under the provisions of 
Article 4(2) of Regulation No 593/2008, the question arises as to what 
constitutes the characteristic performance in the present case, bearing 
in mind that, in essence, the appellant merely marks the parking area 
on the roadway and collects parking charges, while the respondent 
parks and pays for the parking. In practice, if the characteristic 
performance is considered to be that of the appellant, Croatian law 
would apply, whereas if the characteristic performance is that of the 
respondent, Slovenian law would apply. However, given that in this 
case the right to collect parking charges is regulated by Croatian law, 
with which, therefore, the contract is more closely connected, can the 
provisions of Article 4([3]) of Regulation No 593/2008 nevertheless 
also apply? 
– If the case is considered to involve a non-contractual obligation within 
the terms of Regulation No 864/2007, could this non-contractual 
obligation be considered to constitute damage, meaning that the 
applicable law would be determined in accordance with Article 4(1) of 
Regulation No 864/2007? 
– In the alternative, could this type of parking be considered to constitute 
unjust enrichment, meaning that the applicable law would be 
determined in accordance with Article 10(1) of Regulation 
No 864/2007? 
– In the alternative, could this type of parking be considered to constitute 
negotiorum gestio, in which case the applicable law would be 
determined in accordance with Article 11(1) of Regulation 
No 864/2007? 
– In the alternative, could this type of parking be considered to constitute 
liability on the part of the respondent for culpa in contrahendo, in 
OBALA I LUČICE 
 
5 
which case the applicable law would be determined in accordance with 
Article 12(1) of Regulation No 864/2007? 
Provisions of EU law cited 
Article 56 TFEU. 
Articles 4(1), 10(1), 11(1) and 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to 
non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40; ‘Regulation 
No 864/2007’). 
Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and 
extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), 
and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79; 
‘Regulation No 1393/2007’), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 
No 517/2013 of 13 May 2013 (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 1).  
Article 4(1)(b) and (c) and Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to 
contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6; ‘Regulation 
No 593/2008’). 
Article 7(1) and (2) and Article 24(1) 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 (OJ 
2012 L 351, p. 1; ‘Regulation No 1215/2012’), as amended by Regulation (EU) 
No 542/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 (OJ 
2014 L 163, p. 1) and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/281 of 
26 November 2014 (OJ 2015 L 54, p. 1).  
Provisions of national law cited  
Article 1 of the Zakon o sigurnosti prometa na cestama (Law on Road Safety) 
(‘Narodne novine’ Nos 67/2008, 48/2010 and 74/2011) states that the purpose of 
this law is to establish the basic principles of mutual relations, the behaviour of 
users and others when using the roads, the basic road safety requirements for 
public highways, road traffic regulations, road signage and markings and signals 
to be used by authorised officials. Article 5(1)(6) establishes that autonomous 
local and regional entities shall regulate traffic in their territory in accordance with 
the provisions of this law and with the prior approval of the Ministry of the 
Interior. In particular, they are responsible for regulations governing parking 
zones and procedures, parking prohibitions and restricted parking zones.  
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-307/19 
 
6  
Article 1(2) of the Zakon o komunalnom gospodarstvu (Law on the management 
of municipal services) (‘Narodne novine’ Nos 36/1995, 109/1995, 21/1996, 
70/1997, 128/1999, 57/2000, 129/2000, 59/2001, 26/2003 — Zakon o 
komunalnom gospodarstvu (consolidated text), 82/2004, 110/2004, 178/2004, 
38/2009, 79/2009, 153/2009, 153/2009, 49/2011, 84/2011, 90/2011 and 144/2012) 
states that for the purposes of that law, management of municipal services means 
the performance of municipal activities, such as providing municipal services for 
the benefit of natural and legal persons, financing buildings and maintaining 
overall municipal infrastructure facilities and equipment within the territory of the 
municipalities, cities and city of Zagreb, and also of the counties where the law so 
provides. 
Article 3 of the Law on the management of municipal services states that for the 
purposes of that law, municipal activities comprise activities such as the supply of 
drinking water, collection and treatment of waste water, public passenger 
transport, cleaning services, removal of municipal waste, public lighting and 
maintenance of public spaces.  
The Odluka o organizaciji i načinu naplate parkiranja u Gradu Zadru (decision on 
organisation and procedures for collecting parking charges in the city of Zadar) 
(‘Glasnik Grada Zadra’ No 4/2011) establishes parking zones, periods when 
charges shall apply for on-street parking and hourly parking charges. 
Articles 550 to 578 of the Zakona o obveznim odnosima (Law on Obligations) 
(‘Narodne novine’ Nos 35/2005, 41/2008, 125/2011, 78/2015 and 29/2018) 
governs rental agreements. Tenancy agreements for immovable property must be 
in writing. 
Those provisions stipulate that the lessor must hand over the property to the lessee 
in an appropriate condition for the agreed use and must maintain it in that 
condition. In order to maintain the property in an appropriate condition for the 
agreed use, the lessor must, in a timely manner, pay for the necessary repairs and 
the lessee must allow the lessor to carry out such repairs. However, the cost of 
minor repairs and those arising from normal wear and tear shall be borne by the 
lessee.  
The provisions also stipulate that the lessee must pay the rent at the times 
stipulated in the lease or by law or, in the absence of any contractual or legal 
provisions, in accordance with the custom and practice of the place where the 
property is handed over to the lessee. In the absence of any agreement or 
provision to the contrary, the rent is to be paid on the conclusion of the rental 
period, that is, every six months in the case of contracts having a term of at least a 
year. If the contract is for an indefinite period, in the absence of any agreement to 
the contrary, the rent is payable monthly. With regard to non-payment of rent and 
other amounts owed under the tenancy agreement, the lessor of the immovable 
property is entitled to a pledge over any items which the lessee has placed in the 
property; these may be subject to enforcement action and may be retained by the 
OBALA I LUČICE 
 
7 
lessor until the debts are paid. Where the term of the tenancy agreement is not 
specified and cannot be determined having regard to circumstances or local 
custom, it shall end on termination, and either party may serve notice of 
termination on the other party by giving notice within the stipulated period; if the 
notice period is not stipulated in the contract or by law or local custom, the notice 
period shall be 8 days for leases of movable property and 30 days for tenancies of 
immovable property; in the case of immovable property, termination of the 
agreement must be in writing.  
Brief summary of the facts and the main proceedings 
1 On 30 June 2012, at 13.02, the respondent parked a car on the public highway in a 
street in Zadar, Croatia, without buying a parking ticket in advance. Following an 
inspection, the appellant issued a daily ticket, which the respondent did not pay 
for. 
2 On 20 February 2017 the appellant commenced enforcement proceedings through 
a notary in Pula by making an enforcement application on the basis of an authentic 
document. 
3 On 8 March 2017, acting on an enforcement application based on an authentic 
document, the notary issued a writ of execution on the basis of an authentic 
document, in which the defendant in the enforcement proceedings, that is, the 
respondent, was ordered to pay the sum of HRK 84, which was the cost of the 
daily ticket, HRK 1 235 for the costs already incurred in the proceedings and 
HRK 506.25 for foreseeable costs. 
4 The writ of execution issued on the basis of an authentic document was served by 
registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt. The defendant in the 
enforcement proceedings challenged the decision, and the case was therefore 
referred to the competent commercial court, which set aside the writ of execution 
issued on the basis of an authentic document in so far as it ordered enforcement, 
and the proceedings continued as legal proceedings commenced by means of an 
objection to a demand for payment. The Trgovački sud u Pazinu (Commercial 
Court, Pazin, Croatia) ruled that it did not have jurisdiction and referred the case 
to the Trgovački sudu u Zadru (Commercial Court, Zadar, Croatia) for a decision. 
The Commercial Court, Zadar, ruled that it did not have jurisdiction and referred 
the case to the Visoko trgovačkom sudu Republike Hrvatske (Commercial Court 
of Appeal, Croatia) for a decision on the case.  
Brief summary of the grounds for the questions referred 
5 Although the principal amount owed is small, in practice a large number of similar 
cases are being pursued through the courts, and the answers to the questions 
referred are not so obvious as to leave no room for any reasonable doubt. 
Therefore, as the Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske (Commercial Court of 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-307/19 
 
8  
Appeal, Croatia) is a court of last instance in these proceedings, in view of all the 
unresolved issues, it has decided to make this request for a preliminary ruling to 
the Court of Justice for a ruling on whether the Croatian courts have jurisdiction to 
give judgment in the present case and, if they do have jurisdiction, to ask, as a 
subsidiary question, what legislation should provide the basis for determining the 
applicable substantive law.  
First question referred 
6 In its judgment of 9 March 2017 in Pula Parking (C-551/15, EU:C:2017:193), the 
Court of Justice held that Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as 
meaning that, in Croatia, notaries acting within the framework of the powers 
conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an 
‘authentic document’ do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ within the meaning 
of that regulation. 
7 Under Article 14 of Regulation No 1393/2007, the notary in the main proceedings 
served the writ of execution, dated 8 March 2017, which was based on an 
authentic document, on the respondent by registered letter with acknowledgement 
of receipt. 
8 Bearing in mind, first, that under Article 1 of Regulation No 1393/2007, the 
regulation applies in civil and commercial matters where a judicial or extrajudicial 
document has to be transmitted from one Member State to another for service 
there and, secondly, that, in Croatia, notaries acting within the framework of the 
powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on 
an ‘authentic document’ do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ within the 
meaning of Regulation No 1215/2012, the first question referred asks whether 
notaries are authorised to effect service of a document under Regulation 
No 1393/2007 when serving notice of their decisions in cases to which Regulation 
No 1215/2012 does not apply. 
9 In other words, given that notaries do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ for the 
purposes of Regulation No 1215/2012, are they able, when acting within the 
framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement 
proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’, to apply the rules governing 
service of documents established in Regulation No 1393/2007? 
Second and third questions referred 
10 There is also the question of whether the parking in the present case is a civil or 
commercial matter. 
11 In the present case it is clear that the respondent’s authority to collect the parking 
charge is based on the provisions in the Law on Road Safety. Under 
Article 5(1)(6) of that law, all municipalities and cities have taken a decision on 
parking zones and have delegated their public authority powers to a municipal 
OBALA I LUČICE 
 
9 
commercial company formed in order to collect parking charges. The aforesaid 
decisions on parking zones that regulate the collection of parking charges are 
founded on the public authority powers in both the Law on Road Safety and the 
provisions on performing municipal activities contained in the Law on the 
management of municipal services. 
12 Under the decision on organisation and procedures for collecting parking charges 
in the city of Zadar, the appellant ― a commercial company created by the city of 
Zadar in order to perform municipal activities ― is authorised to collect parking 
charges. Among other matters, the aforesaid decision contains rules on collecting 
parking charges in public on-street parking zones. These are parking zones on the 
road and on the pavement that are specifically designated by horizontal and/or 
vertical markings in accordance with the road safety regulations, just as for off-
street parking zones. As with other identical decisions adopted by other cities and 
municipalities, the aforementioned decision defines the parking zones, the period 
during which on-street parking charges will apply, the hourly parking charges in 
each zone, any limits on the length of time for which a vehicle may be parked in a 
particular zone, and the charge for a daily parking ticket issued where the hourly 
parking charge has not been paid for a vehicle or the period for which advance 
payment was made has expired. In that regard, although there is a tariff for a daily 
ticket, it is not possible to pay in advance for a full day’s parking.  
13 Although in the present case there is evidence to show that the vehicle was in the 
parking space from 13.02, the appellant is claiming the price of the daily ticket 
from the respondent as if the vehicle had been parked for the whole day. The 
parking charge is therefore determined by virtue of the authority conferred by 
mandatory provisions, namely the Law on Road Safety, and the charge is 
determined unilaterally in relation to users, meaning that if the hourly parking 
charge is not paid voluntarily, a charge is levied for a full day’s parking, 
regardless of how long the vehicle was parked. The conclusion can therefore be 
drawn that these are penalty provisions, that is, provisions governing payment of a 
specific fine that must be paid where an individual has not voluntarily paid in 
advance for the parking at the hourly rate or where the parking period that was 
paid for has expired. 
14 Under Croatian case-law, in these legal situations concerning on-street parking, 
the presumption applies that a contract has been entered into, because users of 
such on-street parking, where the parking spaces are marked on the road, are 
deemed to enter into a contract. In these zones a charge is made for parking at 
certain times of day (and therefore not 24 hours a day) and the level of the charge 
depends on the zone the parking space is in. When an individual parks his vehicle 
he must buy a parking ticket for a certain period of time (depending on the 
parking zone), and where a vehicle is found not to have a pre-paid ticket, a charge 
is made for a daily parking ticket. 
15 The ordinary courts are considered to have jurisdiction in civil proceedings 
concerning contracts for this type of parking charge. But in some Member States, 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-307/19 
 
10  
where someone fails to pay for on-street parking in a marked parking space he 
incurs liability for an infringement for which a penalty is imposed. In essence, this 
liability for an infringement means that the individual concerned has to pay a far 
higher charge than he would have incurred had he voluntarily paid in advance.  
16 In essence, parking charges are determined and applied by local entities (the 
cities), to which authority has been delegated in respect of police and municipal 
police officers for the purposes of collecting payments for minor road traffic 
offences of this type. In Croatia, the legal entities responsible for collecting 
parking charges (in the present case, the appellant) employ wardens who regularly 
patrol the on-street parking and check whether vehicles are displaying parking 
tickets or whether the parking period has expired. Where the wardens find a 
vehicle without a parking ticket, they issue a daily parking ticket. These wardens 
have a contractual relationship (either a contract of employment or a service 
contract as a self-employed person) with the legal entities to which the local or 
autonomous entities have entrusted the collection of parking charges.  
17 The present case therefore does not concern parking in zones with dedicated 
parking facilities where individuals have parked in a specific purpose-built 
enclosed parking space and obtain a specific parking ticket or a ticket recording 
the time of entry into the car park. That type of parking clearly constitutes a 
classic civil law contract and is, therefore, a civil law matter.  
18 Another difference between the parking in the present case and the classic civil 
law contract relates to the duration of the parking and the payment method. Where 
the parking is regulated under the Law on Road Safety, when a driver parks he 
must purchase a parking ticket from an on-street machine (or pay for the parking 
by text message). The driver must pay in advance for a specific period of time as 
soon as he has parked. If the period of time that has been paid for expires, the 
driver has to pay for a day ticket. (For example, if a driver parks at 15.05 and pays 
for one hour’s parking, that is, until 16.05, at 16.25 he will be given an order to 
pay for a full day’s parking ticket; in other words, he must pay the price of a full 
day’s parking, even though he has already paid for one hour’s parking and even if, 
for example, no parking charges are due until 17.00.)  
19 In the present case, the appellant states that the respondent parked at 13.02 on 
30 June 2012, and it maintains that payment must be made as though the vehicle 
had been parked for the whole day. It can therefore be concluded that the payment 
has a punitive effect, because a charge is incurred for a daily ticket even though 
the vehicle was most probably not parked for the whole day and the warden who 
was checking for vehicles without tickets did not record the vehicle as being there 
before 13.02. By contrast, where parking takes place under a contract that has 
been freely entered into, the parking charge begins to accrue when the vehicle 
enters the car park, and the amount owed is collected when the vehicle leaves the 
car park, because the parking charge covers only the period between when the 
vehicle enters the car park and when it leaves. 
OBALA I LUČICE 
 
11 
20 In its judgment of 14 October 1976 in LTU, (C-29/76, EU:C:1976:137) the Court 
of Justice held that the concept of civil and commercial matters is an independent 
concept that is not dependent on the internal law of the Member State of the court 
concerned. It noted that although some situations involving an action between a 
public authority (regardless whether that authority takes the form of a commercial 
company) and a person governed by private law may fall within the scope of the 
Convention (Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the 
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), 
that is not so where the public authority acts in the exercise of its powers. Such is 
the case in a dispute which concerns the recovery of charges payable for the use of 
public services, namely for the use of equipment where such use is obligatory and 
exclusive and where the rate of charges for that service or the method of 
calculation is fixed unilaterally in relation to the users. 
21 In its judgment of 16 December 1980 in Netherlands v Rüffer, (C-814/79, 
EU:C:1976:137), the Court provided additional clarification on the concept of 
civil matters; it made clear that that case involved an action between a public 
authority and a private person in which the public authority was acting in the 
exercise of its public authority powers, even though the case only involved the 
recovery of costs incurred in the removal of a wreck, and that, therefore, the 
proceedings could not be considered to come within the concept of ‘civil and 
commercial matters’. In order for a dispute between a public authority and a 
private person to be considered to come within the concept of ‘civil and 
commercial matters’, the proceedings must ensure, as far as possible, that the 
rights and obligations which derive from that convention are equal and uniform 
for the Member State and the private person. 
22 In the present case, it is not disputed that the respondent is a person governed by 
private law, that the appellant is a legal person created by the city of Zadar to 
perform municipal activities, and that authority to collect parking charges derives 
from the Law on Road Safety as a mandatory provision of public law. The parking 
charge is determined unilaterally and is the only procedure open to vehicle owners 
who wish to park in the street (the number and availability of off-street parking 
spaces is extremely limited in cities). Given that the purpose of these proceedings 
is to recover payment for a daily ticket that has a punitive element to it, in so far 
as the amount of the charge is not determined by the period of time for which the 
vehicle was parked but is levied as though the vehicle had been parked for the 
whole day, even though the vehicle was only found to be parked in the space at 
13.02, the question arises whether the Croatian courts have jurisdiction to give 
judgment, that is, whether judgments by the Croatian courts could be the subject 
of enforcement action in other Member States, or whether the appellant would 
have to commence legal proceedings in the court of the place where the 
respondent is domiciled.  
23 In the light of the above and of the legal considerations set out in the judgments in 
Cases C-29/76 and C-814/79, the question arises whether parking in the street and 
on the public highway, where the right to collect payment is conferred by the Law 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-307/19 
 
12  
on Road Safety and by the legislation governing the performance of municipal 
activities as public authority activities, can be considered a civil matter within the 
meaning of Regulation No 1215/2012, having regard to the fact that, where a 
vehicle is found without a parking ticket or with an invalid ticket, it is 
immediately subject to a requirement to pay for a daily ticket, as though it had 
been parked for the whole day, regardless of the precise length of time for which it 
was parked. 
24 The question also arises whether, in such cases concerning parking in the street 
and on the public highway, where the right to collect payment is conferred by the 
Law on Road Safety and the legislation governing the performance of municipal 
activities as public authority activities, the courts can effect service of a document 
on the defendants in another Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007. 
Fourth question referred 
25 If, based on the above questions, it is ruled that this type of parking is a civil 
matter, the following further question is referred: do the Croatian courts have 
jurisdiction to hear an appeal and to give judgment on the basis of Regulation 
No 1215/2012? Article 4 of that regulation provides that persons domiciled in a 
Member State are, whatever their nationality, to be sued in the courts of that 
Member State. However, in the present case, the respondent is domiciled in 
another Member State, namely Slovenia, and jurisdiction can therefore be 
determined under Article 7, or possibly under the first paragraph of Article 24(1) 
of that regulation. Moreover, in the light of the provisions on special jurisdiction 
in Article 7 of that regulation, the question arises as to whether the case involves 
contractual or non-contractual liability. 
26 Bearing in mind that under Croatian case-law a contract is presumed to have been 
entered into in respect of this type of on-street parking in a space designated by 
horizontal and/or vertical markings — in other words, by parking there, one is 
deemed to have entered into a contract, and failure to pay the correct hourly 
charge means that one has to pay for a daily ticket — the question arises in this 
dispute whether that presumption, that parking gives rise to a contract and entails 
consent to pay for a daily ticket if one has not bought a ticket under the hourly 
parking tariff or if the parking period on the ticket has expired, is contrary to the 
basic stipulations on the provision of services in Article 56 TFEU and to the other 
provisions in the EU acquis, regardless whether the owner of the vehicle is a 
natural or a legal person. 
Fifth and sixth questions 
27 If that parking does involve entering into a contract, the question also arises as to 
what type of contract it is, that is, whether it is a contract that could provide the 
basis for the jurisdiction of the Croatian courts under Article 7(1) or Article 24 of 
Regulation No 1215/2012. This question is asked in view of recital 15 of that 
regulation. 
OBALA I LUČICE 
 
13 
28 Therefore, given that in the present case the act of parking in the street is deemed 
to imply the conclusion of a contract, the question is whether it constitutes a 
service contract or a tenancy agreement for immovable property whose provisions 
would give rise to special jurisdiction on the part of the Croatian courts, or 
whether it is a contract in respect of which there is no provision for special 
jurisdiction on the part of the courts of a Member State other than the court of the 
defendant’s domicile. 
29 In the present case, the appellant, as the provider of the right to park, merely 
proceeded to mark the on-street parking space and collect the parking charge. 
There is therefore the question of whether this involves a service or, possibly, a 
tenancy of immovable property. This question arises because of the doubts raised 
by the case-law of the Court of Justice. In particular, in its judgment of 23 April 
2009, in Falco Privatstiftung and Rabitsch (C-533/07, EU:C:2009:257, 
paragraph 29) the Court held, inter alia, that the concept of service implies that the 
party who provides the service carries out a particular activity and, specifically, 
that it carries out that activity in return for remuneration. It is therefore 
questionable whether the mere act of marking the parking space, collecting 
payment via a parking machine and checking that tickets have been purchased are 
sufficient to enable the contract to be considered a service contract. 
30 Moreover, in the order of 14 November 2013 in Krejci Lager & Umschlagbetrieb 
(C-469/12, EU:C:2013:788), the Court of Justice held that a storage contract 
entails a specific activity, consisting of the reception of goods, their storage in a 
safe place and their return in an appropriate state, and that such a contract is 
deemed to be a contract for the provision of services, but that where a contract is 
concluded for the rental of an area of space, then only the courts of the place 
where the property is situated have jurisdiction. 
31 In the present case the parking took place in Zadar, Croatia. A connection 
therefore exists between that contract and the Croatian courts, and the court of 
first instance would be the Trgovački sud u Zadru (Commercial Court, Zadar), and 
the court of appeal would be the Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske 
(Commercial Court of Appeal, Croatia). But does this parking constitute a 
‘service’ within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012? In 
particular, the concept of service implies that the party who provides the service 
carries out a particular activity, that is, that the said party carries out that particular 
activity in return for remuneration. The question therefore arises whether the 
activity performed by the appellant is sufficient for it to be considered a service. If 
the Croatian courts do not have special jurisdiction under Article 7(1) of that 
regulation, jurisdiction would lie with the court of the respondent’s domicile. 
32 Moreover, given that this type of parking involves occupying a specific space in 
an immovable property, it could be considered to entail a tenancy agreement of 
the kind referred to in Article 24(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012. In the present 
case, in so far as the parking does not include scope to profit from the parking 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-307/19 
 
14  
space, but only to use it, the only possible agreement is a tenancy agreement 
without a right to profits, based on the general rules in the Law on Obligations. 
33 However, it can be concluded from an examination of those provisions in the Law 
on Obligations that this type of on-street parking cannot be considered to 
constitute a tenancy of immovable property, because the contract is not in writing. 
Moreover, the tenancy is for an indefinite period of time and payment is to be 
collected over a specified period of time during the day (parking charges apply 
only during a certain part of the day rather than 24 hours a day), and there is no 
right of pledge over the vehicles parked in that immovable property. Nevertheless, 
given that a specific space in the immovable property is being occupied, there are 
also certain similarities with a tenancy agreement; therefore it could perhaps be 
concluded that in spite of everything a tenancy agreement has been concluded and 
consequently the jurisdiction provisions in Article 24(1) of Regulation 
No 1215/2012 apply.  
34 The question therefore arises whether parking in the street and on the public 
highway, where the right to collect payment is conferred by the Law on Road 
Safety and the legislation governing the performance of municipal activities as 
public authority activities, and charges are levied only during a specified period 
during the day, can be considered a tenancy agreement for immovable property 
under Article 24(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012. 
Seventh question referred 
35 If the aforesaid presumption that this type of parking entails a contract cannot be 
applied in the present case, the question arises whether this type of parking, where 
authority to collect parking charges is provided by the Law on Road Safety and 
payment for a daily ticket is required if a ticket is not purchased in advance for the 
parking period or if the parking ticket has expired, could be considered to 
constitute a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of 
Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, which would mean that the 
Croatian courts had jurisdiction under those special provisions. If it cannot be 
considered a case of special jurisdiction, the Croatian courts would not have 
jurisdiction to hear proceedings involving an action for collection of parking 
charges pursuant to the authority conferred by the Law on Road Safety; instead, 
only the courts of the respondent’s domicile would have jurisdiction to enforce 
payment. 
36 Regulation No 1215/2012 contains no detailed provision on what constitutes a 
matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict. However, Article 2 of Regulation 
No 864/2007, entitled ‘Non-contractual obligations’, stipulates that damage shall 
cover any consequence arising out of tort/delict, unjust enrichment, negotiorum 
gestio or culpa in contrahendo. Parking of the type under consideration in the 
present case could, in certain circumstances, be considered a quasi-delict, that is to 
say, unjust enrichment or culpa in contrahendo, given that the owner of the 
OBALA I LUČICE 
 
15 
vehicle has not agreed to a contract and has not purchased a parking ticket from 
the machine on the street. 
37 If the aforesaid presumption that the parking entails the conclusion of a contract 
(fourth question referred) cannot be applied in this case, then the question would 
arise whether this type of parking, where authority to collect parking charges is 
provided by the Law on Road Safety and a daily ticket must be purchased if a 
ticket for the parking period is not purchased in advance or if the parking ticket 
has expired, could be deemed to constitute a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-
delict within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012. 
Eighth and ninth questions referred 
38 The question posed above as to whether we are dealing with a contractual or a 
non-contractual obligation, on which the court’s jurisdiction depends, also gives 
rise to a similar issue as regards the applicable law.  
39 In the present case, the parking took place on 30 June 2012, that is, before Croatia 
joined the European Union on 1 July 2013. Therefore, the first question that arises 
is whether the regulations governing the applicable law, namely Regulation 
No 593/2008 or Regulation No 864/2007, apply in the present case, having regard 
to their temporal validity.  
40 This question has become more acute in view of the positions set out in the order 
of 5 November 2014 in VG Vodoopskrba (C-254/14, EU:C:2014:2354), where the 
Court of Justice held that it did not have jurisdiction to reply to the question 
referred because the facts of the main case had occurred before Croatia joined the 
European Union. By contrast, in its judgment of 14 February 2019 in Milivojević 
(C-630/17,EU:C:2019:123), where the parties had also entered into a contract 
before Croatia joined the European Union, the Court of Justice replied to the 
question referred, because it had been established that some of the effects 
connected with the agreement and the legal acts consequent upon it continued to 
make themselves felt. 
41 In view of the legal question raised above, and bearing in mind that in the present 
case the parking took place before Croatia joined the European Union, namely on 
30 June 2012 at 13.02, the question arises whether the provisions on applicable 
law, that is to say, Regulation No 593/2008 or Regulation No 864/2007, apply in 
the present case, having regard to their temporal validity.  
42 If the answer to the question regarding temporal validity is in the affirmative, that 
is, if the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to give a response on the application of 
the material law, the question arises whether, as regards the material law, the 
applicable provisions are those in Regulation No 593/2008 or those in Regulation 
No 864/2007, because in the present case there is an issue over whether the 
obligation is contractual or non-contractual, having regard to the fact that, under 
Croatian case-law, there is a presumption that by parking in the street in a place 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-307/19 
 
16  
designated by horizontal and/or vertical markings one has entered into a contract, 
that is to say, parking there is deemed to imply a contract and if one does not pay 
the hourly parking charges one has to pay the price of a daily parking ticket. 
43 If this presumption is not contrary to the basic stipulations on the provision of 
services in Article 56 TFEU and to the other provisions of the acquis, irrespective 
of whether the owner of the vehicle is a natural or a legal person (fourth question 
referred), the question arises whether, for the purposes of determining the material 
law, the provisions of Article 4 of Regulation No 593/2008 apply in this case 
(especially as there is no evidence in the proceedings to show that the parties came 
to an agreement on the applicable law).  
44 On the one hand, if it is held that a contract has actually been concluded, the 
question arises whether the present case involves a contract for the provision of 
services, that is, whether this parking contract can be considered to be a service 
within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 593/2008, which stipulates 
that a contract for the provision of services shall be governed by the law of the 
country where the service provider has his habitual residence. If it is held not to be 
a contract for the provision of services, the next question is whether it is a tenancy 
agreement, in which case the provisions in Article 4(1)(c) of the aforementioned 
regulation would apply, which stipulate that a contract relating to a right in rem in 
immovable property or to a tenancy of immovable property shall be governed by 
the law of the country where the property is situated. If the contract is held to be 
neither a contract for the provision of services nor a tenancy agreement, then it 
could come within the scope of application of Article 4(2) of that regulation. 
However, the question arises as to what constitutes the characteristic performance 
because, in essence, the appellant merely marks the parking area on the roadway 
and collects parking charges, while the respondent parks and pays for the parking. 
In practice, if the characteristic performance is considered to be that of the 
appellant, Croatian law would apply, whereas if the characteristic performance is 
that of the respondent, Slovenian law would apply. However, given that in this 
case the right to collect parking charges is regulated by Croatian law, with which, 
therefore, the contract is more closely connected, the question arises whether the 
provisions of Article 4[(3)] of the said regulation may nevertheless also apply. 
45 On the other hand, if it is held that the parking does not give rise to a contract, the 
question arises whether this type of parking, where authority to collect parking 
charges is conferred by the Law on Road Safety, could be considered a non-
contractual obligation within the meaning of Regulation No 864/2007, under 
which non-contractual obligations include damage arising out of tort/delict, unjust 
enrichment, negotiorum gestio or culpa in contrahendo. If this type of parking is 
deemed to constitute damage, under Article 4(1) of the regulation the applicable 
law would be the law of the country in which the damage occurs. However, if the 
parking is deemed to constitute unjust enrichment, under Article 10(1) of that 
regulation, Croatian law would apply because the obligation arises out of a 
tort/delict committed by the respondent. But if the parking is deemed to constitute 
negotiorum gestio, under Article 11(1) of that regulation, Croatian law would 
OBALA I LUČICE 
 
17 
apply because the obligation arises out of a tort/delict committed by the 
respondent. Finally, if the parking is deemed to constitute culpa in contrahendo on 
the part of the respondent, under Article 12(1) of that regulation, Croatian law 
would apply because this would have been the applicable law if a contract had 
been entered into.