Case C-419/11

Česká spořitelna, a.s.

v

Gerald Feichter

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze)

‛Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Articles 5(1)(a) and 15(1) — Concepts of ‘matters relating to a contract’ and ‘contract concluded by a consumer’ — Promissory note — Aval — Guarantee provided for a credit contract’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 14 March 2013

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Court for the place of performance of the obligation in question — Choice of place by the parties — Limits — Real connection with the reality of the contractual relationship or with the performance of the contract

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract — Action brought by the payee of a promissory note against the giver of the aval on that note — Included — Note incomplete at the date of the signature — No effect

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Concept of consumer — Natural person with close professional links to a company and who gives an aval on a promissory note issued in order to guarantee the obligations of that company

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Provisions of that regulation treated as equivalent to those of the Brussels Convention — Interpretation of those provisions in accordance with the Court’s case-law relating to the Convention

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Article 15(1) of the Regulation — Restrictive interpretation — Cumulative conditions for its application

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the national court — Determination of the need for and the relevance of the questions referred

See the text of the decision. (see para. 20)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 21)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 25, 45)

Article 15(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, which must be interpreted strictly, applies if three conditions are met: first, a party to a contract is a consumer who is acting in a context which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession, second, the contract between such a consumer and a professional has actually been concluded and, third, such a contract falls within one of the categories referred to in Article 15(1)(a) to (c). Those conditions must all be fulfilled, so that if one of the three conditions is not met, jurisdiction cannot be determined under the rules relating to consumer contracts. (see paras 26, 30)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 27, 28, 31, 43, 44)

Article 15(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 a natural person with close professional links to a company, such as its managing director or majority shareholder, cannot be considered to be a consumer within the meaning of that provision when he gives an aval on a promissory note issued in order to guarantee the obligations of that company under a contract for the grant of credit. In this connection, the mere fact that the giver of the aval is a natural person is not sufficient to establish that he is a consumer within the meaning of that article. Therefore, that provision does not apply for the purposes of determining the court having jurisdiction over judicial proceedings by which the payee of a promissory note, established in one Member State, brings claims under that note, on behalf of the maker of the note, against the giver of the aval, domiciled in another Member State. (see paras 38, 40, operative part 1)

Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters applies for the purposes of determining the court having jurisdiction over judicial proceedings by which the payee of a promissory note, established in one Member State, brings claims under that note, which was incomplete at the date of its signature and was subsequently completed by the payee, on behalf of the maker of the note and against the giver of the aval, domiciled in another Member State. The application of the rule of special jurisdiction provided for matters relating to a contract in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 presupposes the establishment of a legal obligation freely consented to by one person towards another and on which the claimant’s action is based. In the present case, the giver of the aval, by signing the promissory note on its face under the indication ‘per aval’, voluntarily consents to act as the guarantor of the obligations of the maker of that promissory note. Moreover, the fact that that signature was made on a blank promissory note is not such as to cast doubt on that finding. The giver of the aval, by also signing the agreement on the right to complete the note, freely accepts the conditions concerning the manner in which that promissory note would be completed by the payee filling in the missing information, even though signature of that agreement does not, in itself, result in the aval coming into being. (see paras 47-49, 58, operative part 2)