Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Chebu — Czech Republic) — Hypoteční banka, a.s. v Udo Mike Lindner

(Case C-327/10) (1)

(Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Mortgage loan contract concluded by a consumer who is a national of one Member State with a bank established in another Member State - Legislation of a Member State making it possible, in the case where the exact domicile of the consumer is unknown, to bring an action against the latter before a court of that State)

(2012/C 25/19)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Okresní soud v Chebu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hypoteční banka, a.s.

Defendant: Udo Mike Lindner

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Okresní soud v Chebu — Interpretation of Article 81 TFEU and Articles 16(2), 17.3 and 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1), as well as of Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Jurisdiction in respect of a mortgage loan contract concluded by a consumer who is a national of one Member State with a bank established in another Member State — Legislation of a Member State making it possible, in the case where the domicile of the consumer is unknown, to bring an action against the latter before a court of that State

Operative part of the judgment

1. Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the application of the rules of jurisdiction laid down by that regulation requires that the situation at issue in the proceedings of which the court of a Member State is seised is such as to raise questions relating to determination of the international jurisdiction of that court. Such a situation arises in a case such as that in the main proceedings, in which an action is brought before a court of a Member State against a national of another Member State whose domicile is unknown to that court.

2. Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that: — in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which a consumer who is a party to a long-term mortgage loan contract, which includes the obligation to inform the other party to the contract of any change of address, renounces his domicile before proceedings against him for breach of his contractual obligations are brought, the courts of the Member State in which the consumer had his last known domicile have jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 16(2) of that regulation, to deal with proceedings in the case where they have been unable to determine, pursuant to Article 59 of that regulation, the defendant’s current domicile and also have no firm evidence allowing them to conclude that the defendant is in fact domiciled outside the European Union; — that regulation does not preclude the application of a provision of national procedural law of a Member State which, with a view to avoiding situations of denial of justice, enables proceedings to be brought against, and in the absence of, a person whose domicile is unknown, if the court seised of the matter is satisfied, before giving a ruling in those proceedings, that all investigations required by the principles of diligence and good faith have been undertaken with a view to tracing the defendant.

(1) OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.