Case C‑302/13

flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines AS

v

Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga VAS

and

Air Baltic Corporation AS

(Request for a preliminary ruling from
the Augstākās Tiesas Senāts)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 31 — Request for recognition and enforcement of a judgment ordering provisional or protective measures — Article 1(1) — Scope — Civil and commercial matters — Concept — Claim for compensation in respect of damage resulting from alleged infringements of EU competition law — Reductions in airport charges — Article 22(2) — Exclusive jurisdiction — Concept — Dispute in proceedings concerning companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons — Decision granting reductions — Article 34(1) — Grounds for refusal of recognition — Public policy in the State in which recognition is sought)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 23 October 2014      

1.        Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Scope — Civil and commercial matters — Concept — Action seeking legal redress for damage resulting from alleged infringements of EU competition law — Included

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 1(1))

2.        Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Exclusive jurisdiction — Proceedings concerning companies or other legal persons — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the company has its seat — Scope — Action seeking legal redress for damage resulting from alleged infringements of EU competition law — Not included

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Arts 22(2))

3.        Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Recognition and enforcement of judgments — Grounds for refusal — Infringement of public policy of the Member State in which recognition is sought — Concept — detailed rules for determining the amount of the sums which are the subject of the provisional and protective measures granted by a judgment — Excluded where sufficient reasons given — Mere invocation of serious economic consequences — Not included

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 34(1))

1.        Article 1(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action seeking legal redress for damage resulting from alleged infringements of EU competition law comes within the notion of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of that provision and, therefore, falls within the scope of that regulation.

(see para. 38, operative part 1)

2.        Article 22(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action seeking legal redress for damage resulting from alleged infringements of EU competition law does not constitute proceedings having as their object the validity of the decisions of organs of companies within the meaning of that provision.

(see para. 42, operative part 2)

3.        Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that neither the detailed rules for determining the amount of the sums which are the subject of the provisional and protective measures granted by a judgment in respect of which recognition and enforcement are requested, in the case where it is possible to follow the line of reasoning which led to the determination of the amount of those sums, and even where legal remedies were available which were used to challenge such methods of calculation, nor the mere invocation of serious economic consequences constitute grounds establishing the infringement of public policy of the Member State in which recognition is sought which would permit the refusal of recognition and enforcement in that Member State of such a judgment given in another Member State.

Moreover, the extent of the obligation to give reasons may vary according to the nature of the judgment and must be examined, in the light of the proceedings taken as a whole and all the relevant circumstances, taking account of the procedural guarantees surrounding that judgment, in order to ascertain whether those guarantees ensure that the persons concerned have the possibility to bring an appropriate and effective appeal against that decision.

The concept of ‘public policy’ within the meaning of Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 seeks to protect legal interests which are expressed through a rule of law, and not purely economic interests.

(see paras 52, 56, 59, operative part 3)