Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof - Germany) - Land Berlin v Ellen Mirjam Sapir, Michael J. Busse, Mirjam M. Birgansky, Gideon Rumney, Benjamin Ben-Zadok, Hedda Brown
(Case C-645/11)
(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Articles 1(1) and 6(1) - Concept of 'civil and commercial matters' - Undue payment made by a State entity - Claim for recovery of that payment in legal proceedings - Determination of the court having jurisdiction in the case where claims are connected - Close connection between the claims - Defendant domiciled in a non-member State)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Bundesgerichtshof
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Land Berlin
Defendant: Ellen Mirjam Sapir, Michael J. Busse, Mirjam M. Birgansky, Gideon Rumney, Benjamin Ben-Zadok, Hedda Brown
Re:
Request for a preliminary ruling - Bundesgerichtshof - Interpretation of Article 1(1) and 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000, concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) - Notion of 'civil and commercial matters' - Inclusion or not of an action for repayment of an amount unduly paid by a State body in an administrative procedure intended to compensate for damage caused by the Nazi regime
Operative part of the judgment
Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of 'civil and commercial matters' includes an action for recovery of an amount unduly paid in the case where a public body is required, by an authority established by a law providing compensation in respect of acts of persecution carried out by a totalitarian regime, to pay to a victim, by way of compensation, part of the proceeds of the sale of land, has, as the result of an unintentional error, paid to that person the entire sale price, and subsequently brings legal proceedings seeking to recover the amount unduly paid.
Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that there is a close connection, within the meaning of that provision, between claims lodged against several defendants domiciled in other Member States in the case where the latter, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, rely on rights to additional compensation which it is necessary to determine on a uniform basis.
Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not intended to apply to defendants who are not domiciled in another Member State, in the case where they are sued in proceedings brought against several defendants, some of who are also persons domiciled in the European Union.
____________1 - OJ C 80, 17. 3. 2012.