EUPillar BGH, 18.11.2011

Summary

The parties argued on a restitution paid out by the Land Berlin which allegedly has been too high. The Land was obliged to pay the sum according to a German law that constitutes the obligation of compensation in certain issues of expropriation during the Nazi regime. The Regional Court denied the international jurisdiction of German courts. The court stayed the proceedings and requested a preliminary ruling by the CJEU concerning the following questions: 1. Does a claim for the repayment of an amount unduly paid constitute a civil matter within the meaning of Art. 1(1) Brussels I in the circumstances where a Land ordered by a public authority to pay to victims by way of compensation part of the proceeds from a sale of land instead, erroneously, pays to those parties the entire purchase price? 2. Can claims be regarded as so closely connected as required pursuant to Article 6.1 Brussels I where the defendants rely on additional compensation claims which must be determined on a uniform basis? 3. Does Article 6.1 Brussels I also apply to defendants not domiciled in the European Union? If that question is answered in the affirmative, does this also apply where, in the defendant’s State of domicile, pursuant to a bilateral convention with the State determining the claim, recognition of the judgment might be refused for lack of jurisdiction? The CJEU answered the questions in September 2013 (C-645/11) (see judgment paragraph 58): 1. Art. 1(1) Brussels I 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. 2. Art. 6.1 Brussels I 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. 3. Art. 6.1 Brussels I 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.