Language of document : ECLI:EU:C:2013:245

Case C‑103/11 P

European Commission

v

Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg SA

(Appeals — Articles 225(1) EC, 235 EC and 288, second paragraph, EC — Action in non-contractual liability against the European Community — Assessment of the non-contractual character of the dispute — Jurisdiction of the Community Courts)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 18 April 2013

1.        Judicial proceedings — Request that the oral procedure be reopened — Request to submit observations on the points of law raised by the Opinion of the Advocate General — Conditions for reopening

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83)

2.        Actions for damages — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Limits — Character of the liability invoked — Verification by the Court — Action involving assessment of contractual rights and obligations — No arbitration clause — Jurisdiction of the national courts

(Art. 235 EC, 240 EC and 288, second para., EC)

1.        See the text of the decision.

(see para. 41)

2.        In order to decide which court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a specific action brought against the Community seeking compensation for damage, it is necessary to determine whether the action in question concerns the Community’s contractual liability or its non-contractual liability.

In that respect, the concept of non-contractual liability, within the meaning of Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, which is of an autonomous character, must be interpreted in the light of its purpose, namely that of allowing an allocation of jurisdiction between the Community Courts and the national courts. In that context, when hearing an action for compensation, the Community Courts must, before ruling on the substance of the dispute, as a preliminary issue determine their jurisdiction by carrying out an analysis to establish the character of the liability invoked and thus the very nature of the dispute in question.

In doing that, the Community Courts cannot base their reasoning simply on the rules alleged by the parties. They are required to verify whether the action for compensation before them has as its subject-matter a claim for damages based objectively and overall on rights and obligations of a contractual nature or of a non-contractual nature. For those purposes, those Courts must examine, on an analysis of the various matters in the file, such as, for example, the rule of law allegedly infringed, the nature of the damage claimed, the conduct complained of and the legal relations between the parties in question, whether there exists between them a genuine contractual context, linked to the subject-matter of the dispute, the in-depth examination of which proves to be indispensable for the resolution of the said action.

If a preliminary analysis of those matters shows that it is necessary to interpret the content of one or more contracts concluded between the parties in question in order to establish whether the applicant’s claims are well founded, those courts are required at that point to halt their examination of the dispute and declare that they have no jurisdiction to rule thereon in the absence of an arbitration clause in the said contracts. In such circumstances, examination of the action for compensation directed against the Community would imply the assessment of rights and obligations of a contractual nature which, pursuant to Article 240 EC, cannot be removed from the jurisdiction of the national courts.

(see paras 61-64, 66, 67)