European Commission v Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg SA.
Date: 2013-04-18
41. It should be observed in that regard that the Court may at any moment, having heard the Advocate General, order the reopening of the oral procedure under Article 83 of its Rules of Procedure, inter alia if it considers that it lacks sufficient information or that the case must be dealt with on the basis of an argument which has not been debated between the parties or the parties concerned referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (see Case C‑116/11 Bank Handlowy and Adamiak  [2012] ECR I-0000, paragraph 28 and case-law cited).
56. The EC Treaty provides for jurisdiction to be divided between the Community Courts and the national courts as regards judicial proceedings brought against the Community in which its liability for damage is at issue (Case C‑377/09 Hanssens‑Ensch  [2010] ECR I-7751, paragraph 16).
57. In particular, under Article 240 EC, save where the Treaty confers jurisdiction on the Court of Justice or the General Court, disputes to which the Community is a party fall within the jurisdiction of the courts or tribunals of the Member States (Joined Cases C-80/99 to C-82/99 Flemmer and Others  [2001] ECR I-7211, paragraph 39; Guigard  v Commission , cited above, paragraph 39).
58. There is no treaty provision conferring upon the Court of Justice or the General Court jurisdiction to hear disputes concerning the contractual liability of the Community, apart from Article 238 EC. The latter presupposes, however, the existence of an arbitration clause contained in a contract awarded by the Community or on its behalf ( Flemmer and Others , paragraph 42; Guigard  v Commission , paragraphs 40 and 41), and thus consists of a jurisdiction in derogation from the ordinary law, which must accordingly be interpreted restrictively (Case 426/85 Commission  v Zoubek  [1986] ECR 4057, paragraph 11; Case C‑114/94 IDE  v Commission  [1997] ECR I‑803, paragraph 82).
59. It follows that, in the light of Article 240 EC, where there is no arbitration clause, proceedings concerning the Community’s contractual liability fall within the jurisdiction of the national courts ( Hanssens-Ensch , paragraph 19).
60. By contrast, with regard to the Community’s non-contractual liability, such disputes fall within the jurisdiction of the Community Courts. Article 235 EC, read in conjunction with Article 225(1) EC, provides that the Court of Justice and the General Court have jurisdiction to hear and determine actions seeking compensation for damage brought under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, which covers just such non‑contractual liability. That jurisdiction of the Community Courts is exclusive (see, to that effect, inter alia, Case C‑282/90 Vreugdenhil v Commission [1992] ECR I‑1937, paragraph 14, Case C‑275/00 First and Franex [2002] ECR I‑10943, paragraph 43 and the case-law cited, and Hanssens-Ensch , cited above, paragraph 17), those Courts having to verify, for the Community to be non-contractually liable, the satisfaction of a cumulative set of conditions, namely the unlawfulness of the conduct alleged against the institutions, the fact of damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct of the institution and the damage complained of (Case C‑243/05 P Agraz and Others  v Commission  [2006] ECR I‑10833, paragraph 26 and case-law cited).
61. It follows from the foregoing that, in order to decide which Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a specific action brought against the Community seeking compensation for damage, it is necessary to determine whether the action in question concerns the Community’s contractual liability or its non-contractual liability ( Hanssens-Ensch , paragraph 20).
64. In doing that, those Courts cannot base their reasoning simply on the rules alleged by the parties.
65. In that regard, as the Commission points out in its first plea, referred to in paragraph 46 of this judgment, the Court of Justice has already held that the mere invocation of legal rules not flowing from a contract relevant in the case, but which are binding on the parties, cannot have the consequence of altering the contractual nature of the dispute and thus removing it from the jurisdiction of the competent court. If it were otherwise, the nature of the dispute and, consequently, the competent court, could be changed at the whim of the rules invoked by the parties, which would go against the rules on the jurisdiction of the various courts ratione materiae  ( Guigard  v Commission , paragraph 43).
66. However, the Community Courts are required to verify whether the action for compensation before them has as its subject-matter a claim for damages based objectively and overall on rights and obligations of a contractual nature or of a non-contractual nature. For those purposes, as the Advocate General has pointed out in points 49 and 50 of his Opinion, those Courts must examine, on an analysis of the various matters in the file, such as, for example, the rule of law allegedly infringed, the nature of the damage claimed, the conduct complained of and the legal relations between the parties in question, whether there exists between them a genuine contractual context, linked to the subject-matter of the dispute, the in-depth examination of which proves to be indispensable for the resolution of the said action.