ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
29 November 2017 (*)
(Expedited procedure)
In Case C‑603/17,
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, made by decision of 20 October 2017, received at the Court on 20 October 2017, in the proceedings
Peter Bosworth,
Colin Hurley
v
Arcadia Petroleum Limited and Others
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,
after hearing the Judge-Rapporteur, R. Silva de Lapuerta, and Advocate General, H. Saugmandsgaard Øe,
makes the following
Order
1 The request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed on 30 October 2007, the conclusion of which was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2009/430/EC of 27 November 2008 (OJ 2009 L 147, p. 1).
2 That request has been made in proceedings between Peter Bosworth and Colin Hurley, on the one hand, and Arcadia Petroleum Limited and other companies (‘Arcadia’) on the other, concerning a claim for compensation for loss alleged to have been suffered by those companies as a result of the alleged fraudulent actions of Mr Bosworth and Mr Hurley.
3 The order for reference states that the claim for compensation was lodged with the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court) (UK), which, by orders of 12 February 2015, ordered, inter alia, on an interim basis, the immediate freezing of the assets held in England and Wales by Mr Bosworth and Mr Hurley, and by other natural and legal persons alleged to be involved in the fraudulent transactions denounced by Arcadia.
4 The order for reference also states that Mr Bosworth and Mr Hurley contested the jurisdiction of the UK courts to hear the dispute in the main proceedings. According to them, under the provisions of the convention referred to in paragraph 1 above, the competent courts are those of the Member State on whose territory they are domiciled, namely, in the present case, the Swiss courts.
5 In those circumstances, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom decided to stay the proceedings and make a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice. The referring court has also requested that the Court of Justice apply the expedited procedure to the present case pursuant to Article 105(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.
6 That provision provides that, at the request of the referring court or tribunal or, exceptionally, of his own motion, the President of the Court may, where the nature of the case requires that it be dealt with within a short time, after hearing the Judge-Rapporteur and the Advocate General, decide that a reference for a preliminary ruling is to be determined pursuant to an expedited procedure derogating from the provisions of the Rules of Procedure.
7 In support of its request that the present case be determined pursuant to an expedited procedure, the referring court states that the challenge to jurisdiction raised by Mr Bosworth and Mr Hurley has the effect of staying, as regards all the parties, the examination of the merits of the case and maintaining in force the interim measures ordered against them by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court).
8 In that regard, it should be recalled that economic interests, as important and legitimate as they may be, are not capable of justifying, in themselves, use of the expedited procedure (order of the President of the Court of 16 March 2017, Abanca Corporación Bancaria, C‑70/17, not published, EU:C:2017:227, paragraph 13, and of 31 July 2017, Mobit, C‑350/17 and C‑351/17, not published, EU:C:2017:626, paragraph 7).
9 Next, the fact that the request for a preliminary ruling was made in the context of proceedings that are, in the national system, urgent and in which the referring court is required to do everything possible to ensure that the case in the main proceedings is resolved swiftly, is not in itself sufficient to justify the use of the expedited procedure (orders of the President of the Court of 31 July 2017, A, C‑404/17, not published, EU:C:2017:627, paragraph 14, and of 24 October 2017, Popławski, C‑573/17, not published, EU:C:2017:827, paragraph 7).
10 In that context, the legal uncertainty affecting the parties in the main proceedings, and those who are parties to similar proceedings, and their legitimate interest in knowing as quickly as possible the meaning of the rights that they derive from EU law does not constitute an exceptional circumstance that could justify use of such a procedure (orders of the President of the Court of 16 March 2017, Abanca Corporación Bancaria, C‑70/17, not published, EU:C:2017:227, paragraph 14, and of 19 September 2017, Magamadov, C‑438/17, not published, EU:C:2017:723, paragraph 21).
11 Finally, according to the Court’s settled case-law, the large number of persons or legal situations potentially concerned by the decision that the referring court must make after referring a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling is not capable as such of constituting an exceptional circumstance that could justify the use of an expedited procedure (order of the President of the Court of 16 March 2017, Abanca Corporación Bancaria, C‑70/17, not published, EU:C:2017:227, paragraph 12).
12 The same is true as regards the large number of cases that may be stayed pending the determination by the Court of the preliminary reference (order of the President of the Court of 24 October 2017, Popławski, C‑573/17, not published, EU:C:2017:827, paragraph 8).
13 In the present case, it must first of all be noted that the interim measures ordered against Mr Bosworth and Mr Hurley, and the other natural and legal persons covered by Arcadia’s claim for compensation, are purely economic.
14 Next, those measures apply only to assets situated within a specific geographical area, namely England and Wales, with the result that they do not affect the assets held by Mr Bosworth and Mr Hurley outside that geographical area, in particular in the State in which they are domiciled.
15 Moreover, those measures were adopted by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court) on 15 February 2015, which is more than two and a half years before the referring court decided to refer the present request for a preliminary ruling to the Court. While that period of waiting may have been prejudicial to the interests of those whose assets are frozen in the United Kingdom, it also puts into perspective the degree of urgency that characterises the dispute.
16 Finally, the fact that natural and legal persons other than Mr Bosworth and Mr Hurley, also covered by the interim measures at issue in the main proceedings, must await the decision of the Court in the present case before there is a ruling in disputes between them and Arcardia is not, in accordance with the Court’s case-law recalled in paragraphs 10-12 above, capable of justifying the use of an expedited procedure.
17 Consequently, the request by the referring court for an expedited procedure to be used in the present case cannot be granted.
On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders:
The request by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom for Case C‑603/17 to be subject to the expedited procedure provided for in Article 105(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice is dismissed.
Luxembourg, 29 November 2017.
A. Calot Escobar | | K. Lenaerts |