Case C‑157/12

Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH

v

SC Laminorul SA

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof)

‛Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 34(3) and (4) — Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State — Situation whereby that judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in that Member State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 26 September 2013

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Recognition and enforcement of judgments — Grounds for refusing enforcement — Judgment irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another Member State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties — Concept — Judgments given by courts of the same Member State — Not included

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Arts 34(4) and 45(2))

Article 34(4) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not covering irreconcilable judgments given by courts of the same Member State.

In principle, the sound operation of the rules on recognition and enforcement of judgments given in another Member State, which are based on mutual trust, implies that the courts of the Member State of origin retain jurisdiction to assess, in the context of the legal remedies established by the legal system of that Member State, the lawfulness of the judgment to be enforced, to the exclusion, in principle, of the court of the Member State in which enforcement is sought, and that the final outcome of the assessment of the lawfulness of that judgment will not be called into question.

The interpretation of Article 34(4) of Regulation No 44/2001 according to which it also covers conflicts between two judgments given in one Member State is inconsistent with the principle of mutual trust, as laid down by Regulation No 44/2001. Such an interpretation would allow the court in the Member State in which recognition is sought to substitute its own assessment of that of the court in the Member Sate of origin.

Once the judgment has become final at the end of the proceedings in the Member State of origin, the non-enforcement of that judgment on the ground that it is irreconcilable with a judgment given in the same Member State amounts to reviewing the judgment sought to be enforced as to its substance which is, however, expressly excluded by Article 45(2) of Regulation No 44/2001.

(see paras 31, 33, 36, 37, 40, operative part)

Case C‑157/12

Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH

v

SC Laminorul SA

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof)

‛Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 34(3) and (4) — Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State — Situation whereby that judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in that Member State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 26 September 2013

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Recognition and enforcement of judgments — Grounds for refusing enforcement — Judgment irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another Member State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties — Concept — Judgments given by courts of the same Member State — Not included

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Arts 34(4) and 45(2))

Article 34(4) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not covering irreconcilable judgments given by courts of the same Member State.

In principle, the sound operation of the rules on recognition and enforcement of judgments given in another Member State, which are based on mutual trust, implies that the courts of the Member State of origin retain jurisdiction to assess, in the context of the legal remedies established by the legal system of that Member State, the lawfulness of the judgment to be enforced, to the exclusion, in principle, of the court of the Member State in which enforcement is sought, and that the final outcome of the assessment of the lawfulness of that judgment will not be called into question.

The interpretation of Article 34(4) of Regulation No 44/2001 according to which it also covers conflicts between two judgments given in one Member State is inconsistent with the principle of mutual trust, as laid down by Regulation No 44/2001. Such an interpretation would allow the court in the Member State in which recognition is sought to substitute its own assessment of that of the court in the Member Sate of origin.

Once the judgment has become final at the end of the proceedings in the Member State of origin, the non-enforcement of that judgment on the ground that it is irreconcilable with a judgment given in the same Member State amounts to reviewing the judgment sought to be enforced as to its substance which is, however, expressly excluded by Article 45(2) of Regulation No 44/2001.

(see paras 31, 33, 36, 37, 40, operative part)