Česká podnikatelská pojišťovna as, Vienna Insurance Group v Michal Bilas.
Date: 2010-05-20
21. In this connection, it must be observed that the first sentence of Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 provides for 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 is not derived 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.
22. The second sentence of Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 provides for 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 his 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.
23. That second sentence contains a rule which delimits the scope of the general rule. Consequently, as has been observed by the Czech, German and Slovak Governments, and by the Commission of the European Communities, it must be regarded as an exception and must be interpreted restrictively.
25. According to the case-law relating to Article 18 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), a provision essentially identical to Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001, in the situations which are not expressly included in the exceptions provided for in the second sentence of Article 18, the general rule on the tacit prorogation of jurisdiction applies. Ruling in proceedings where the parties had concluded an agreement on jurisdiction, the Court stated that neither the general scheme nor the objectives of that convention 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 Case 150/80 Elefanten Schuh  [1981] ECR 1671, paragraph 10, and Case 48/84 Spitzley  [1985] ECR 787, paragraphs 24 and 25).
26. Accordingly, since the rules on jurisdiction set out in Section 3 of Chapter II of Regulation No 44/2001 are not rules on exclusive jurisdiction, the court seised, where those rules are not complied with, must declare itself to have jurisdiction where the defendant enters an appearance and does not contest that court’s jurisdiction.
30. Accordingly, although in the fields concerned by Sections 3 to 5 of Chapter II of that regulation the aim of the rules on jurisdiction is to offer the weaker party stronger protection (see, in that regard, Case C‑463/06 FBTO Schadeverzekeringen  [2007] ECR I-11321, paragraph 28), the jurisdiction determined by those sections cannot be imposed on that party. If that party deliberately decides to enter an appearance, Regulation No 44/2001 leaves him the option to defend himself as to substance before a court other than those determined on the basis of those sections.
33. It is apparent from the foregoing that the answer to the second question is that Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that the court seised, where the rules in Section 3 of Chapter II of that regulation were not complied with, 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.
On the first and third questions