Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG and Others v Samskip GmbH.
Date: 2012-11-15
24. The Court has held that Article 25 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), the Court’s interpretation of which also holds true, in principle, for the corresponding provision of Regulation No 44/2001 (see, to that effect, Case C‑406/09 Realchemie Nederland  [2011] ECR I‑9773, paragraph 38), namely Article 32 of that regulation, is not limited to decisions which terminate a dispute in whole or in part, but also applies to provisional or interlocutory decisions (Case C‑39/02 Mærsk Olie & Gas [2004] ECR I‑9657, paragraph 46).
25. Moreover, according to the Court’s settled case‑law, the provisions of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted independently, by reference to its scheme and purpose (see, to that effect, Case C‑103/05 Reisch Montage  [2006] ECR I‑6827, paragraph 29; Case C‑167/08 Draka NK Cables and Others  [2009] ECR I‑3477, paragraph 19; and Case C‑189/08 Zuid-Chemie  [2009] ECR I‑6917, paragraph 17).
34. As the Court has observed, referring to the Report of 27 September 1968 on the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, drawn up by Mr Jenard (OJ 1979 C 59, p. 1), recognition must ‘have the result of conferring on judgments the authority and effectiveness accorded to them in the State in which they were given’ ( Hoffmann , paragraph 10). Accordingly, a foreign judgment which has been recognised under Article 33 of Regulation No 44/2001 must in principle have the same effects in the State in which recognition is sought as it does in the State of origin (see, to that effect, Hoffmann , paragraph 11).
35. Moreover, as observed in paragraph 28 above, the principle of mutual trust between courts underlies the system established by Regulation No 44/2001. As observed by the Advocate General in point 73 of his Opinion, a high degree of mutual trust is all the more necessary where the courts of the Member States are called on to apply common rules of direct jurisdiction. Thus, those rules and the rules on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in that regulation do not constitute distinct and autonomous systems but are closely linked (Case C‑514/10 Wolf Naturprodukte [2012] ECR, paragraph 25). It is on that link that rests the simplified mechanism of recognition and enforcement set out in Article 33(1) of that regulation, under which a judgment given in a Member State is in principle to be recognised in the other Member States and which leads, pursuant to Article 35(3) of that regulation, to there being no review of the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of origin (see, to that effect, Opinion 1/03 [2006] ECR I‑1145, paragraph 163).
40. Moreover, the concept of res judicata under European Union law does not attach only to the operative part of the judgment in question, but also attaches to the ratio decidendi  of that judgment, which provides the necessary underpinning for the operative part and is inseparable from it (see, inter alia, Joined Cases C‑442/03 P and C‑471/03 P P & O European Ferries (Vizcaya) and Diputación Foral de Vizcaya  v Commission [2006] ECR I‑4845, paragraph 44, and Case C‑221/10 P Artegodan  v Commission [2012] ECR, paragraph 87). As observed in paragraph 35 above, given that the common rules of jurisdiction applied by the courts of the Member States have their source in European Union law, more specifically in Regulation No 44/2001, and given the requirement of uniform application referred to in paragraph 39 above, the concept of res judicata  under European Union law is relevant for determining the effects produced by a judgment by which a court of a Member State has declined jurisdiction on the basis of a jurisdiction clause.
42. This approach is not called into question by the argument put forward by the Federal Republic of Germany, based inter alia on paragraph 66 of the judgment in Case C‑420/07 Apostolides  [2009] ECR I‑3571, according to which there is no reason for granting to a judgment, when it is enforced, rights which it does not have in the Member States in question. The recognition of judgments, handed down by courts of Member States, declining jurisdiction under Regulation No 44/2001 which are delivered – as observed in paragraph 35 above – pursuant to common rules of jurisdiction provided for by European Union law, is governed by its own sui generis system, as described in paragraphs 39 to 41 above.