Case C‑523/14

Aannemingsbedrijf Aertssen NV

and

Aertssen Terrassements SA

v

VSB Machineverhuur BV and Others

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 1 — Scope — Complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings — Article 27 — Lis pendens — Proceedings brought before a court of another Member State — Ongoing judicial investigation — Article 30 — Time when a court is deemed to be seised’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 22 October 2015

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Lis pendens — Time when court seised — Time of lodging a complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings before an investigating magistrate — Condition — Document which need not be served before that lodging

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Lis pendens — Proceedings brought before a court — Meaning — Complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings lodged with an investigating magistrate seeking compensation for harm suffered by the complainant — Included

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Lis pendens — Proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties — Meaning

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Scope — Civil and commercial matters — Meaning — Complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings lodged with an investigating magistrate seeking compensation for harm suffered by the complainant — Included

Article 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 complaint lodged with an investigating magistrate seeking to join a civil action to proceedings falls within the scope of that regulation in so far as its object is to obtain monetary compensation for harm allegedly suffered by the complainant. In order to determine whether or not a matter falls within the scope of that regulation, the factors which characterise the nature of the legal relationships between the parties to the dispute or the subject-matter thereof must be examined. In that regard, even though it is joined to criminal proceedings, a civil action for compensation for injury to an individual resulting from a criminal offence continues to be civil in nature. Consequently, while the aim of a complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings is to set in motion a criminal prosecution and while the investigation undertaken by the court seised is criminal in nature, the fact remains that its purpose is also to resolve a dispute between private persons concerning compensation for harm which one of those persons considers it has suffered as a result of the fraudulent conduct of others. Consequently, the legal relationship between the parties must be classified as ‘a private law relationship’ and is therefore covered by the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of Regulation No 44/2001. (see paras 30-32, 36, operative part 1)

See the text of the judgment. (see paras 42-46)

Article 27(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 proceedings are brought, within the meaning of that provision, when a complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings has been lodged with an investigating magistrate, even though the judicial investigation of the case at issue has not yet been closed. Where a person has joined a civil action to proceedings before an investigating magistrate, the possibility of any other court of another Member State being seised of the same civil action, namely proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, would lead, if that article were held not to be applicable, to there being concurrent proceedings and would create the danger of delivery of irreconcilable judgments, which would be contrary to that objective. In that regard, the fact that there is uncertainty as to the outcome of the judicial investigation is of no relevance. Such uncertainty is inherent in any type of pending proceedings and, therefore, exists in all cases where a situation of lis pendens is likely to arise. (see paras 50-52, operative part 2)