Netherlands State v Reinhold Rüffer.
Date: 1980-12-16
7 IT IS APPARENT FROM THE CASE-LAW OF THE COURT ( JUDGMENT OF 14 OCTOBER 1976 IN CASE 29/76 LTU ( 1976 ) ECR 1541 ; JUDGMENT OF 14 JULY 1977 IN CASES 9 AND 10/77 BAVARIA-GERMANAIR ( 1977 ) ECR 1517 ; JUDGMENT OF 22 FEBRUARY 1979 IN CASE 133/78 GOURDAIN ( 1978 ) ECR 733 ) THAT THE CONCEPT ' ' CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS '  USED IN ARTICLE 1 OF THE BRUSSELS CONVENTION MUST BE REGARDED AS AN INDEPENDENT CONCEPT WHICH MUST BE CONSTRUED WITH REFERENCE FIRST TO THE OBJECTIVES AND SCHEME OF THE CONVENTION AND SECONDLY TO THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES WHICH STEM FROM THE CORPUS OF THE NATIONAL LEGAL SYTEMS .
8 IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE CONSIDERATIONS THE COURT HAS SPECIFICALLY HELD IN THAT SAME CASE-LAW THAT WHILST CERTAIN JUDGMENTS GIVEN IN AN ACTION BETWEEN A PUBLIC AUTHORITY AND A PERSON GOVERNED BY PRIVATE LAW MAY COME WITHIN THE AREA OF APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION THAT IS NOT THE CASE IF THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY IS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS PUBLIC AUTHORITY POWERS .
9 SUCH A CASE IS AN ACTION FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE COSTS INVOLVED IN THE REMOVAL OF A WRECK IN A PUBLIC WATERWAY , ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE RESPONSIBLE IN PERFORMANCE OF AN INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATION AND ON THE BASIS OF PROVISIONS OF NATIONAL LAW WHICH , IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THAT WATERWAY , CONFER ON IT THE STATUS OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY IN REGARD TO PRIVATE PERSONS .
13 THE FACT THAT IN THIS CASE THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT DOES NOT CONCERN THE ACTUAL REMOVAL OF THE WRECK BUT THE COSTS INVOLVED IN THAT REMOVAL AND THAT THE NETHERLANDS STATE IS SEEKING TO RECOVER THOSE COSTS BY MEANS OF A CLAIM FOR REDRESS AND NOT BY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS AS PROVIDED     FOR BY THE NATIONAL LAW OF OTHER MEMBER STATES CANNOT BE SUFFICIENT TO BRING THE MATTER IN DISPUTE WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE BRUSSELS CONVENTION .
14 AS THE COURT HAS STATED IN THE AUTHORITIES CITED ABOVE THE BRUSSELS CONVENTION MUST BE APPLIED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO ENSURE , AS FAR AS POSSIBLE , THAT THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS WHICH DERIVE FROM IT FOR THE CONTRACTING STATES AND THE PERSONS TO WHOM IT APPLIES ARE EQUAL AND UNIFORM . BY THAT SAME CASE-LAW SUCH A REQUIREMENT RULES OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF THE CONVENTION ' S BEING INTERPRETED SOLELY IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIVISION OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN THE VARIOUS TYPES OF COURTS EXISTING IN CERTAIN STATES : ON THE CONTRARY IT IMPLIES THAT THE AREA OF APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION IS ESSENTIALLY DETERMINED EITHER BY REASON OF THE LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THE ACTION OR OF THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE ACTION .
15 THE FACT THAT IN RECOVERING THOSE COSTS THE ADMINISTERING AGENT ACTS PURSUANT TO A DEBT WHICH ARISES FROM AN ACT OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY IS SUFFICIENT FOR ITS ACTION , WHATEVER THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFFORDED BY NATIONAL LAW FOR THAT PURPOSE , TO BE TREATED AS BEING OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF THE BRUSSELS CONVENTION .
16 FOR THOSE REASONS THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION MUST BE THAT THE CONCEPT OF ' ' CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS ' '  WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 1 OF THE CONVENTION OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1968 ON JURISDICTION AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS DOES NOT INCLUDE ACTIONS SUCH AS THAT REFERRED TO BY THE NATIONAL COURT BROUGHT BY THE AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTERING PUBLIC WATERWAYS AGAINST A PERSON HAVING LIABILITY IN LAW IN ORDER TO RECOVER THE COSTS INCURRED IN THE REMOVAL OF A WRECK CARRIED OUT BY OR AT THE INSTIGATION OF THE ADMINISTERING AGENT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS PUBLIC AUTHORITY .

THE OTHER QUESTIONS