Credit Agricole Bank Polska SA v AB.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2024:297
• Date: 11 April 2024
• Docket Number: C-183/23
• Celex Number: 62023CJ0183
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)

Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber)

11 April 2024 (*)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Article 6(1) – Scope – Contract concluded by a consumer who is a national of a third State with a bank established in a Member State – Proceedings brought against that consumer – Court of the last known domicile of the consumer in a Member State)

In Case C‑183/23,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy – Śródmieścia w Warszawie (District Court, Śródmieście, Warsaw, Poland), made by decision of 27 February 2023, received at the Court on 22 March 2023, in the proceedings

Credit Agricole Bank Polska S.A.

v

AB,

THE COURT (Ninth Chamber),

composed of O. Spineanu-Matei (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.‑C. Bonichot and L.S. Rossi, Judges,

Advocate General: N. Emiliou,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– the Polish Government, by B. Majczyna and S. Żyrek, acting as Agents,

– the German Government, by J. Möller and M. Hellmann, acting as Agents,

– the European Commission, by J. Hottiaux and S. Noë, acting as Agents,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 6(1) and Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

2 The request has been made in proceedings between Credit Agricole Bank Polska S.A., established in Poland, and AB, a consumer whose current address is unknown, concerning the payment of a sum of money claimed by the bank from AB under a consumer credit agreement.

Legal context

European Union law

3 Recitals 6, 15 and 18 of Regulation No 1215/2012 state:

‘(6) In order to attain the objective of free circulation of judgments in civil and commercial matters, it is necessary and appropriate that the rules governing jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments be governed by a legal instrument of the Union which is binding and directly applicable.

…

(15) The rules of jurisdiction should be highly predictable and founded on the principle that jurisdiction is generally based on the defendant’s domicile. …

…

(18) In relation to insurance, consumer and employment contracts, the weaker party should be protected by rules of jurisdiction more favourable to his interests than the general rules.’

4 Article 4(1) of that regulation provides:

‘Subject to this Regulation, persons domiciled in a Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State.’

5 In accordance with Article 5(1) of that regulation:

‘Persons domiciled in a Member State may be sued in the courts of another Member State only by virtue of the rules set out in Sections 2 to 7 of this Chapter.’

6 Pursuant to Article 6(1) of that regulation:

‘If the defendant is not domiciled in a Member State, the jurisdiction of the courts of each Member State shall, subject to Article 18(1), Article 21(2) and Articles 24 and 25, be determined by the law of that Member State.’

7 Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 provides:

‘In matters relating to a contract concluded by a person, the consumer, for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section, without prejudice to Article 6 and point 5 of Article 7, if:

(a) it is a contract for the sale of goods on instalment credit terms;

(b) it is a contract for a loan repayable by instalments, or for any other form of credit, made to finance the sale of goods; or

(c) in all other cases, the contract has been concluded with a person who pursues commercial or professional activities in the Member State of the consumer’s domicile or, by any means, directs such activities to that Member State or to several States including that Member State, and the contract falls within the scope of such activities.’

8 Article 18(1) and (2) of that regulation provides:

‘1. A consumer may bring proceedings against the other party to a contract either in the courts of the Member State in which that party is domiciled or, regardless of the domicile of the other party, in the courts for the place where the consumer is domiciled.

2. Proceedings may be brought against a consumer by the other party to the contract only in the courts of the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled.’

9 Under Article 26 of that regulation:

‘1. Apart from jurisdiction derived from other provisions of this Regulation, a court of a Member State before which a defendant enters an appearance shall have jurisdiction. This rule shall not apply where appearance was entered to contest the jurisdiction, or where another court has exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of Article 24.

2. In matters referred to in Sections 3, 4 or 5 where the policyholder, the insured, a beneficiary of the insurance contract, the injured party, the consumer or the employee is the defendant, the court shall, before assuming jurisdiction under paragraph 1, ensure that the defendant is informed of his right to contest the jurisdiction of the court and of the consequences of entering or not entering an appearance.’

10 According to Article 28(1) and (2) of that regulation:

‘1. Where a defendant domiciled in one Member State is sued in a court of another Member State and does not enter an appearance, the court shall declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction unless its jurisdiction is derived from the provisions of this Regulation.

2. The court shall stay the proceedings so long as it is not shown that the defendant has been able to receive the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence, or that all necessary steps have been taken to this end.’

11 Article 62 of Regulation No 1215/2012 provides:

‘1. In order to determine whether a party is domiciled in the Member State whose courts are seised of a matter, the court shall apply its internal law.

2. If a party is not domiciled in the Member State whose courts are seised of the matter, then, in order to determine whether the party is domiciled in another Member State, the court shall apply the law of that Member State.’

Polish law

12 Under Article 144(1) of the ustawa – Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Law establishing the Code of Civil Procedure) of 17 November 1964 (Dz. U. No 43, item 296), in the version applicable to the main proceedings (‘the Code of Civil Procedure’):

‘Where the applicant demonstrates that the party’s place of residence is unknown, the President of the Court shall appoint a representative in absentia. …’

13 In accordance with Article 69(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is applicable mutatis mutandis to the representative in absentia appointed pursuant to Article 144 of that code:

‘The representative appointed pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be empowered to perform all acts in connection with the case concerned.’

14 Under Article 139¹ of the Code of Civil Procedure:

‘(1) If, despite new service pursuant to the second sentence of Article 139(1), the defendant has not withdrawn the application or any other procedural document establishing the need to defend his rights, and if no document has been previously served on him in accordance with the procedures laid down in the preceding Articles, and unless Article 139(2) to (31) or any other special provision giving effect to service applies, the President shall so inform the claimant by sending him a copy of the document addressed to the defendant and shall order him to have that document served on the defendant by a bailiff.

(2) The claimant shall, within two months of the date on which the obligation referred to in paragraph 1 was served on him, either place on file confirmation of service of the document on the defendant by a bailiff or return the document and...