Frahuil SA v Assitalia SpA.
Date: 2004-02-05
20. In a case such as the present one in which there are multiple relationships involving a party who is a public authority and a person governed by private law, as well as  only parties governed by private law, 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 (Case C-271/00  Baten  [2002] ECR I-10489, paragraph 31, and Case 266/01  Préservatrice foncière TIARD  [2003] ECR I-4867, paragraph 23).
21. The legal relationship between Frahuil and Assitalia, the two parties governed by private law who are contesting the main proceedings, is a relationship governed by private law. According to the order for reference, the party which brought the action is exercising a legal remedy which is open to it through a legal subrogation provided for in a civil law provision. That action does not amount to the exercise of powers falling outside the scope of the rules applicable to relationships between private individuals, and must therefore be regarded as coming within the concept of   " civil and commercial matters"  within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 1 of the Convention (see, to this effect,  Préservatrice foncière TIARD , cited above, paragraph 36).
The concept of matters relating to a contract
According to settled case-law, the concept of   " matters relating to a contract"  is to be interpreted independently, regard being had to the objectives and general scheme of the Convention, in order to ensure that it is applied uniformly in all the Contracting States; that concept cannot therefore be taken to refer to classification under the relevant national law of the legal relationship in question before the national court (see in particular Case C-26/91  Handte  v  Traitements Mécano-Chimiques des Surfaces  [1992] ECR I-3967, paragraph 10, Case C-51/97  Réunion européenne and Others  [1998] ECR I-6511, paragraph 15, Case C-334/00  Tacconi [2002] ECR I-7357, paragraph 19, and Case C-167/00  Henkel  [2002] ECR I-8111, paragraph 35).
23. Under the system of the Brussels Convention, the general principle is that the courts of the Contracting State in which the defendant is domiciled are to have jurisdiction and it is only by way of derogation from that principle that the Brussels Convention provides for cases, which are exhaustively listed, in which the defendant may or must, depending on the case, be sued in the courts of another Contracting State.  Consequently, the rules of jurisdiction which derogate from that general principle cannot give rise to an interpretation going beyond the cases envisaged by the Convention (see in particular  Handte , paragraph 14, and  Réunion européenne and Others , paragraph 16, both cited above).
24. Also according to settled case-law, it follows that the concept of   " matters relating to a contract"  in Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention is not to be understood as covering a situation in which there is no obligation freely assumed by one party towards another ( Handte , paragraph 15,  Réunion européenne and Others , paragraph 17, and  Tacconi , paragraph 23, cited above).
25. In that regard it is not disputed that in the main proceedings Frahuil is not a party to the contract of guarantee under which Assitalia undertook to guarantee the payment of the customs duties by Vegetoil. However, it appears that Frahuil instructed Vegetoil to carry out the formalities of customs clearance. It is therefore a matter for the referring court to examine the legal relationship between Frahuil and Vegetoil in order to establish whether that relationship permitted Vegetoil, on behalf of Frahuil, to enter into a contract such as the contract of guarantee in question in the main proceedings.
26. It follows from the foregoing considerations that the answer to the question referred by the national court must be that Article 5(1) of the Convention must be interpreted as meaning that   " matters relating to a contract"  do not cover the obligation which a guarantor who paid customs duties under a guarantee obtained by the forwarding agent seeks to enforce in legal proceedings by way of subrogation to the rights of the customs authorities and by way of recourse against the owner of the goods, if the latter, who was not a party to the contract of guarantee, did not authorise the conclusion of that contract.