Case C—551/15
Pula Parking d.o.o.
v
Sven Klaus Tederahn
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Puli-Pola)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling— Judicial cooperation in civil matters— Regulation (EU) No1215/2012— Temporal and material scope— Civil and commercial matters— Enforcement proceedings relating to the recovery of an unpaid public parking debt— Included— Concept of ‘court’— Notary who has issued a writ of execution based on an ‘authentic document’)
Summary— Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 9March 2017
1.Judicial cooperation in civil matters— Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters— Regulation No1215/2012— Provisions of that regulation regarded as equivalent to those of the Brussels Convention— Interpretation of those provisions in accordance with the case-law of the Court relating to the Convention
(Convention of 27September 1968; European Parliament and Council Regulation No1215/2012)
2.Judicial cooperation in civil matters— Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters— Regulation No1215/2012— Provisions of that regulation regarded as equivalent to those of Regulation No44/2001— Interpretation of those provisions in accordance with the case-law of the Court relating to Regulation No44/2001
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No1215/2012; Council Regulation No44/2001)
3.Judicial cooperation in civil matters— Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters— Regulation No1215/2012— Scope— Civil and commercial matters— Concept— Enforcement proceedings brought by a company owned by a local authority against a natural person domiciled in another Member State, for the purposes of recovering an unpaid debt, which are not in any way punitive— Included
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No1215/2012, Art.1(1))
4.Judicial cooperation in civil matters— Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters— Regulation No1215/2012— Concept of court— Notaries acting in enforcement proceedings based on an authentic document— Ex parte proceedings— Not included
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No1215/2012)
1.See the text of the decision.
(see para. 28)
2.See the text of the decision.
(see para. 31)
3.Article1(1) of Regulation (EU) No1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that enforcement proceedings brought by a company owned by a local authority against a natural person domiciled in another Member State, for the purposes of recovering an unpaid debt for parking in a public car park, the operation of which has been delegated to that company by that authority, which are not in any way punitive but merely constitute consideration for a service provided, fall within the scope of that regulation.
In order to determine whether a matter falls within the scope of Regulation No1215/2012, it is necessary to identify the legal relationship between the parties to the dispute and to examine the basis and the detailed rules governing the bringing of the action (see, to that effect, judgments of 11April 2013, Sapir and Others, C‑645/11, EU:C:2013:228, paragraph34, and of 12September 2013, Sunico and Others, C‑49/12, EU:C:2013:545, paragraph35).
In this case, as the Advocate General also observed in points49 to 51 of his Opinion, the administration of public parking and the collection of parking fees constitute a task carried out in the local interest, effected by Pula Parking, an undertaking owned by the town of Pula. However, although the powers of Pula Parking have been entrusted to it by an act of public authority, neither the determination of the unpaid parking debt, of a contractual nature, nor the action for recovery of that debt, the purpose of which is to safeguard private interests and which is governed by general provisions of law applicable to relations between private individuals, appears to require the town of Pula or Pula Parking to exercise public authority powers.
Moreover, nor does it appear that, by issuing a parking ticket to the persons concerned, Pula Parking grants itself the power to issue an enforcement order, in derogation from the general rules of law, since after it has issued such a ticket, Pula Parking is merely able, in the same way as the issuer of an invoice, to rely on an authentic document capable of enabling it to initiate proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Enforcement (see, to that effect, judgment of 12September 2013, Sunico and Others, C‑49/12, EU:C:2013:545, paragraph39).
It follows that the legal relationship between Pula Parking and MrTederahn must, in principle, be classified as a private law relationship and falls, therefore, within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ for the purposes of Regulation No1215/2012.
(see paras34, 35, 37-39, operative part1)
4.Regulation No1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, in Croatia, notaries, acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’, do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ within the meaning of that regulation.
According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, both the principle of mutual trust between the Member States and the principle of mutual recognition are, in EU law, of fundamental importance given that they allow an area without internal borders to be created and maintained (judgment of 5April 2016, Aranyosi and Căldăraru, C‑404/15 and C‑659/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:198, paragraph78 and the case-law cited).
In the scheme of Regulation No1215/2012, those principles result in the handling and enforcement of judicial decisions of the courts of a Member State as if they had been delivered in the Member State in which enforcement is sought.
Consequently, given the objectives pursued by Regulation No1215/2012, the concept of ‘court’ for the purposes of that regulation must be interpreted as taking account of the need to enable the national courts of the Member States to identify judgments delivered by other Member States’ courts and to proceed, with the expeditiousness required by that regulation, in enforcing those judgments. Compliance with the principle of mutual trust in the administration of justice in the Member States of the European Union which underlies that regulation requires, in particular, that judgments the enforcement of which is sought in another Member State have been delivered in court proceedings offering guarantees of independence and impartiality and in compliance with the principle of audi alteram partem.
In this case, as the Croatian Government submitted at the hearing, in Croatia, notaries form part of the public notarial system, which is separate from the judicial system. Pursuant to the provisions of the Law on Enforcement, in Croatia, notaries have the power to give decisions by writ on applications for enforcement based on authentic documents. Once the writ has been served on the defendant, the latter may lodge an opposition. A notary before whom an admissible, well-founded opposition to a writ issued by that notary is raised in timely fashion is to transfer the file to the court with jurisdiction and the court must take a decision on the opposition.
It follows from those provisions that the writ of execution based on an ‘authentic document’, issued by the notary, is served on the debtor only after the writ has been adopted, without the application by which the matter is raised with the notary having been communicated to the debtor.
Although it is true that debtors have the opportunity to lodge oppositions against writs of execution issued by notaries and it appears that notaries exercise the responsibilities conferred on them in the context of enforcement proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’ subject to review by the courts, to which notaries must refer possible challenges, the fact remains that the examination, by notaries, in Croatia, of an application for a writ of execution on such a basis is not conducted on an inter partes basis.
(see paras51, 52, 54, 56-59, operative part2)