Taser International Inc. v SC Gate 4 Business SRL and Cristian Mircea Anastasiu.
Date: 2016-03-17
20


It should be noted that Regulation No 44/2001 is applicable in a dispute between a defendant domiciled in a Member State and an applicant from of a third country (see, by analogy, judgment in Owusu, C‑281/02, EU:C:2005:120, paragraph 27).
21


Furthermore, the first sentence of Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 lays down a rule of jurisdiction based on the entering of an appearance by the defendant in respect of all disputes where the jurisdiction of the court seised does not derive from other provisions of that regulation. That provision applies also in cases where the court has been seised in breach of the provisions of that regulation and implies that the entering of an appearance by the defendant may be considered to be a tacit acceptance of the jurisdiction of the court seised and thus a prorogation of that court’s jurisdiction (judgment in Cartier parfums-lunettes and Axa Corporate Solutions assurances, C‑1/13, EU:C:2014:109, paragraph 34).
22


The second sentence of Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 provides exceptions to that general rule. It determines that there is no tacit prorogation of jurisdiction of the court seised where the defendant contests the jurisdiction, thereby expressing its intention not to accept that court’s jurisdiction, or where the dispute is one in respect of which Article 22 of that regulation provides for rules on exclusive jurisdiction (judgment in Cartier parfums-lunettes and Axa Corporate Solutions assurances, C‑1/13, EU:C:2014:109, paragraph 35).
23


Thus, the general rule on the tacit prorogation of jurisdiction of the court seised applies, except in the circumstances which are expressly included amongst the exceptions laid down in the second sentence of Article 24. Since the prorogation of jurisdiction by an agreement on jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 23 of Regulation No 44/2001 is not included amongst the exceptions, the Court has previously held that neither the general scheme nor the objectives of that regulation provide grounds for the view that the parties are prevented from submitting their dispute to a court other than that stipulated in the agreement (see, to that effect, judgment in ČPP Vienna Insurance Group, C‑111/09, EU:C:2010:290, paragraph 25).
24


This reasoning applies both to agreements conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a Member State and to those in favour of the courts of a third country, since the tacit prorogation of jurisdiction by virtue of the first sentence of Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 is based on a deliberate choice made by the parties to the dispute regarding jurisdiction (see judgment in A, C‑112/13, EU:C:2014:2195, paragraph 54). Accordingly, as is apparent from the previous paragraph of this judgment, the question on the applicability of Article 23 of that regulation is irrelevant.
32


Furthermore, it is clear from recitals 2 and 11 in its preamble that Regulation No 44/2001 seeks to unify the rules of conflict of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters by way of rules of jurisdiction which are highly predictable. Accordingly, Regulation No 44/2001 pursues an objective of legal certainty which consists in strengthening the legal protection of persons established in the European Union, by enabling the applicant to identify easily the court in which he may sue and the defendant reasonably to foresee before which court he may be sued (judgment in Falco Privatstiftung and Rabitsch, C‑533/07, EU:C:2009:257, paragraphs 21 and 22).
33


Thus, the Court has held that, where the rules on exclusive jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 22 of Regulation No 44/2001 do not apply, the court seised must declare itself to have jurisdiction where the defendant enters an appearance and does not contest that court’s jurisdiction, since entering an appearance in that way amounts to a tacit prorogation of jurisdiction for the purpose of Article 24 of the regulation (see, to that effect, judgment in ČPP Vienna Insurance Group, C‑111/09, EU:C:2010:290, paragraphs 26 and 33).
35


Having regard to the position of that provision within the scheme of that regulation and the objective pursued, the rules of jurisdiction provided for in that provision are of an exclusive and mandatory nature, the application of which is specifically binding on both litigants and courts (see, to that effect, judgment in Solvay, C‑616/10, EU:C:2012:445, paragraph 44).