BUAK Bauarbeiter-Urlaubs- u. Abfertigungskasse v Gradbeništvo Korana d.o.o.
Date: 2019-02-28
34


In that regard, it is apparent from the Court’s settled case-law that, although Article 267 TFEU does not make the reference to the Court subject to there having been an inter partes hearing in the proceedings in the course of which the national court refers the questions for a preliminary ruling, a national court may refer a question to the Court only if there is a case pending before it and if it is called upon to give judgment in proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature (judgment of 16 June 2016, Pebros Servizi, C‑511/14, EU:C:2016:448, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited).
35


The Court has also held that the terms ‘give judgment’, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, encompass the whole procedure leading to the referring court’s judgment and must, therefore, be interpreted broadly in order to prevent many procedural questions from being regarded as inadmissible and from being unable to be the subject of interpretation by the Court and the latter from being unable to interpret all procedural provisions of EU law that the referring court is required to apply (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 June 2016, Pebros Servizi, C‑511/14, EU:C:2016:448, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).
39


In such a case, as the Advocate General noted in essence in point 52 of his Opinion, by determining whether it is competent to issue the certificate under Article 53 of Regulation No 1215/2012, that court is continuing the previous judicial proceedings by guaranteeing the full effectiveness thereof, to the extent that, in the absence of certification, a judgment is not capable of circulating freely within the European judicial area. Such a conclusion responds to the need to guarantee rapid enforcement of court judgments while ensuring the legal certainty which is the basis of mutual trust in the administration of justice in the Union.
41


Consequently, the procedure for the issue of a certificate under Article 53 of Regulation No 1215/2012, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, is judicial in character, with the result that a national court ruling in the context of such a procedure is entitled to refer questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
45


It should be noted that it is settled case-law that, in so far as Regulation No 1215/2012 repeals and replaces 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), it should be observed that the Court’s interpretation of the provisions of the latter regulation also applies to Regulation No 1215/2012, whenever the provisions of the two instruments of EU law may be regarded as equivalent (judgment of 15 November 2018, Hellenische Republik, C‑308/17, EU:C:2018:911, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited).
46


According to the Court’s settled case-law, in order to ensure, as far as possible, that the rights and obligations which derive from Regulation No 1215/2012 for the Member States and the persons to whom it applies are equal and uniform, the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ included in Article 1(1) of that regulation should not be interpreted as a mere reference to the internal law of a Member State. That concept must be regarded as an autonomous concept to be interpreted by reference, first, to the objectives and scheme of that regulation and, second, to the general principles which stem from the corpus of the national legal systems (judgment of 9 March 2017, Pula Parking, C‑551/15, EU:C:2017:193, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).
47


Moreover, the need to ensure the good functioning of the internal market and to ensure, in the interests of the harmonious administration of justice, that irreconcilable judgments will not be given in two Member States require a broad interpretation of that concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 September 2009, German Graphics Graphische Maschinen, C‑292/08, EU:C:2009:544, paragraphs 22 and 23).
48


In order to determine whether a matter falls within the scope of Regulation No 1215/2012, it is necessary to identify the legal relationship between the parties to the dispute and to examine the basis and the detailed rules governing the bringing of the action (see, to that effect, judgments of 11 April 2013, Sapir and Others, C‑645/11, EU:C:2013:228, paragraphs 32 and 34, and of 12 September 2013, Sunico and Others, C‑49/12, EU:C:2013:545, paragraph 35).
49


As the Court has repeatedly held, although certain actions between a public authority and a person governed by private law may come within the scope of Regulation No 1215/2012, it is otherwise where the public authority is acting in the exercise of its public powers (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 September 2013, Sunico and Others, C‑49/12, EU:C:2013:545, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited). The exercise of public powers by one of the parties to the case, because it exercises powers falling outside the scope of the ordinary legal rules applicable to relationships between private individuals, excludes such a case from civil and commercial matters within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (see, by analogy, judgment of 23 October 2014, flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines, C‑302/13, EU:C:2014:2319, paragraph 31).
59


In that regard, it should be noted that, in the context of proceedings brought under Article 267 TFEU, it is not for the Court to rule on the interpretation of national provisions, as such an interpretation falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national courts (judgment of 27 October 2009, ČEZ, C‑115/08, EU:C:2009:660, paragraph 57 and the case-law cited).
67


The concept of ‘social security’ is defined autonomously in relation to the substance of that concept in in EU law. Therefore, as is apparent from the Court’s case-law, that concept encompasses the matters covered by Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1) (see, by analogy, as regards Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), judgment of 14 November 2002, Baten, C‑271/00, EU:C:2002:656, paragraph 45).
68


Moreover, a benefit may be regarded as a social security benefit in so far as it is granted to the recipients, without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs, on the basis of a legally defined position and relates to one of the risks expressly listed in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 883/2004 (see, by analogy, judgment of 19 September 2013, Hliddal and Bornand, C‑216/12 and C‑217/12, EU:C:2013:568 paragraph 48 and the case-law cited).