8.12.2014
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 439/7
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās Tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines AS, in liquidation v Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga VAS, Air Baltic Corporation AS
(Case C-302/13) (1)
((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 European Union 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))
(2014/C 439/09)
Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court
Augstākās Tiesas Senāts
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines AS, in liquidation
Defendants: Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga VAS, Air Baltic Corporation AS
Operative part of the judgment
1)
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 an action such as that in the main proceedings, seeking legal redress for damage resulting from alleged infringements of European Union 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.
2)
Article 22(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that an action such as that in the main proceedings, seeking legal redress for damage resulting from alleged infringements of European Union 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.
3)
Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 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.
(1) OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy