EUPillar C-111/09 Česká podnikatelská pojišťovna as, Vienna Insurance Group v Michal Bilas (Forth Chamber) [2010] ECR I-04545

Summary

This case on Arts 24 and 26 of Brussels I was referred to the CJEU in proceedings between ČPP (an insurance company established in the Czech Republic) and Mr Bilas (a policyholder domiciled in Slovakia) regarding the payment of an insurance premium. ČPP brought an action against Mr Bilas in the Czech Republic before the referring court seeking an order for the payment by him of the premium due under the insurance policy between them. Mr Bilas challenged ČPP’s claim as to its substance without contesting the court’s jurisdiction. The court observed that where its jurisdiction has not been contested, it cannot conduct an examination as to its own jurisdiction since the dispute does not fall within the situations under Arts 25 and 26 of Brussels I. It also observed that if it rules on the substance without examining its jurisdiction, its judgment cannot be recognised in another MS under Art 35. It was uncertain as to whether that conclusion is correct and asked the CJEU, where the rules in Section 3 of Chapter II of Brussels I are not complied with, whether it has jurisdiction under Art 24 if the defendant enters an appearance and does not contest its jurisdiction. The CJEU observed that the second sentence of Art 24 contains a rule which delimits the scope of the general rule provided in the first sentence of Art 24, and consequently it must be regarded as an exception and interpreted restrictively. It stated that the second sentence of Art 24 cannot be understood as enabling the application of the general rule in the first sentence to be excluded in respect of disputes other than those to which it expressly refers. This interpretation was already given by the CJEU on its case-law relating to Art 18 of the Brussels Convention. Ruling in proceedings where the parties had concluded an agreement on jurisdiction, the CJEU stated in 150/80 Elefanten Schuh and 48/84 Spitzley that neither the general scheme nor the objectives of the Convention provide grounds for the view that the parties are prevented from submitting their dispute to a court other than that stipulated in the agreement. It accordingly found that since the jurisdiction rules set out in Section 3 of Chapter II of Brussels I are not exclusive, the court seised, where those rules are not complied with, must declare itself to have jurisdiction where the defendant enters an appearance and does not contest that court’s jurisdiction. As regards the recognition of a judgment under Art 35(1) given by a court declaring itself to have jurisdiction under Art 24, the CJEU stated that Art 35 concerns non-recognition of judgments given by a court without jurisdiction and it is therefore not applicable where the judgment is given by a court with jurisdiction. It found that that is true, of a court seised, even though those rules on special jurisdiction are not complied with, before which the defendant enters an appearance and does not contest that court’s jurisdiction, because such a court in fact has jurisdiction under Art 24. Therefore, the CJEU stated that Art 35 does not prevent the recognition of the judgment given by that court. It thus held that the court seised, where the rules in Section 3 of Chapter II of Brussels I were not complied with, must declare itself to have jurisdiction under Art 24 where the defendant enters an appearance and does not contest that court’s jurisdiction, since entering an appearance in that way amounts to a tacit prorogation of jurisdiction. In the light of this answer, the CJEU found that there was no need to consider other questions. As regards the first question on Art 26(1), it stated that since the referring court must declare that it has jurisdiction under Brussels I, an examination of Art 26(1), which, in accordance with its actual wording, may be applied only where the court’s jurisdiction is not derived from the provisions of Brussels I, would be irrelevant. This was a straightforward case dealt with by the CJEU in 14 months.