Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2012:226
Date: 2012-04-19
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 25 October 2012 1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Conditions — Questions relating to the actual nature or subject-matter of the proceedings — Request providing the Court with sufficient details of the factual and legal context (Art. 267 TFEU) 2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001— Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict — Action for a negative declaration — Inclusion (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 5(3)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 22 to 28) 2. Point (3) of Article 5 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 an action for a negative declaration seeking to establish the absence of liability in tort, delict, or quasi-delict falls within the scope of that provision. It is true that that action for a negative declaration entails a reversal of the normal roles in matters relating to tort or delict, since, in such an action, the claimant is the party against whom a claim based on a tort or delict might be made, while the defendant is the party whom that tort or delict may have adversely affected. However, that reversal of roles is not such as to exclude an action for a negative declaration from the scope of point (3) of Article 5 Regulation No 44/2001. The objectives, pursued by that provision of ensuring that the court with jurisdiction is foreseeable and of preserving legal certainty are not connected either to the allocation of the respective roles of claimant and defendant or to the protection of either. Moreover, even though there is a difference between, on the one hand, the interests of the applicant in an action for a negative declaration and, on the other, the interests of the applicant in proceedings seeking to have the defendant held liable for causing loss and ordered to pay damages, in both cases, the examination undertaken by the court seised essentially relates to the same matters of law and fact. (see paras 43-45, 48, 55, operative part)