London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited v Kingdom of Spain.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2022:488
• Date: 20 June 2022
• Docket Number: C-700/20
• Celex Number: 62020CJ0700
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)

20 June 2022 ( *1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State – Grounds for non-recognition – Article 34(3) – Judgment irreconcilable with a judgment given in a dispute between the same parties in the Member State in which recognition is sought – Conditions – Whether the prior judgment entered in the terms of an arbitral award complies with the provisions and fundamental objectives of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Article 34(1) – Recognition manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State in which recognition is sought – Conditions)

In Case C‑700/20,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court) (United Kingdom), made by decision of 21 December 2020, received at the Court on 22 December 2020, in the proceedings

London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited

v

Kingdom of Spain,

THE COURT (Grand Chamber),

composed of K. Lenaerts, President, L. Bay Larsen, Vice-President, K. Jürimäe, C. Lycourgos, E. Regan, I. Jarukaitis and N. Jääskinen, Presidents of Chambers, M. Ilešič, J.‑C. Bonichot, M. Safjan (Rapporteur), A. Kumin, M.L. Arastey Sahún, M. Gavalec, Z. Csehi and O. Spineanu-Matei, Judges,

Advocate General: A.M. Collins,

Registrar: C. Strömholm, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 31 January 2022,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited, by A. Song and M. Volikas, Solicitors, A. Thompson and C. Tan, Barristers, C. Hancock QC and T. de la Mare QC,

– the United Kingdom Government, by L. Baxter, B. Kennelly and F. Shibli, acting as Agents,

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

– the Spanish Government, by S. Centeno Huerta, A. Gavela Llopis, S. Jiménez García and M.J. Ruiz Sánchez, acting as Agents,

– the French Government, by A. Daniel and A.‑L. Desjonquères, acting as Agents,

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

– the Swiss Government, by M. Schöll, acting as Agent,

– the European Commission, by C. Ladenburger, X. Lewis and S. Noë, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 5 May 2022,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 1(2)(d) and Article 34(1) and (3) 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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

2 The reference has been made in proceedings between London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Association Limited (‘the London P&I Club’) and the Kingdom of Spain concerning the recognition in the United Kingdom of a judgment given by a Spanish court.

Legal context

European Union law

Regulation No 44/2001

3 Recital 16 of Regulation No 44/2001 states: ‘Mutual trust in the administration of justice in the [European Union] justifies judgments given in a Member State being recognised automatically without the need for any procedure except in cases of dispute.’

4 Article 1(1) and (2) of that regulation provides: ‘1. This Regulation shall apply in civil and commercial matters whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. It shall not extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters. 2. The Regulation shall not apply to: … (d) arbitration.’

5 Chapter II of Regulation No 44/2001, entitled ‘Jurisdiction’, is divided into 10 sections.

6 Section 3 of that chapter concerns jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance.

7 Within that section, Article 13 of that regulation provides: ‘The provisions of this Section may be departed from only by an agreement: … 5. which relates to a contract of insurance in so far as it covers one or more of the risks set out in Article 14.’

8 Under Article 14 of that regulation, which is also in that section: ‘The following are the risks referred to in Article 13(5): 1. any loss of or damage to: (a) seagoing ships, installations situated offshore or on the high seas, or aircraft, arising from perils which relate to their use for commercial purposes; … 2. any liability, other than for bodily injury to passengers or loss of or damage to their baggage: (a) arising out of the use or operation of ships, installations or aircraft as referred to in point 1(a) in so far as, in respect of the latter, the law of the Member State in which such aircraft are registered does not prohibit agreements on jurisdiction regarding insurance of such risks; …’

9 Section 7 of Chapter II of Regulation No 44/2001 concerns the prorogation of jurisdiction and contains, inter alia, Article 23 of that regulation, paragraph 1 of which provides: ‘If the parties, one or more of whom is domiciled in a Member State, have agreed that a court or the courts of a Member State are to have jurisdiction to settle any disputes which have arisen or which may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship, that court or those courts shall have jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Such an agreement conferring jurisdiction shall be either: (a) in writing or evidenced in writing; or (b) in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves; or (c) in international trade or commerce, in a form which accords with a usage of which the parties are or ought to have been aware and which in such trade or commerce is widely known to, and regularly observed by, parties to contracts of the type involved in the particular trade or commerce concerned.’

10 Section 9 of that chapter, relating to lis pendens and related actions, includes, inter alia, Article 27 of that regulation, which provides: ‘1. Where proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties are brought in the courts of different Member States, any court other than the court first seised shall of its own motion stay its proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established. 2. Where the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established, any court other than the court first seised shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court.’

11 Chapter III of Regulation No 44/2001, entitled ‘Recognition and enforcement’, comprises Articles 32 to 56 of that regulation.

12 Article 32 of that regulation provides: ‘For the purposes of this Regulation, “judgment” means any judgment given by a court or tribunal of a Member State, whatever the judgment may be called, including a decree, order, decision or writ of execution, as well as the determination of costs or expenses by an officer of the court.’

13 Under Article 33 of that regulation: ‘1. A judgment given in a Member State shall be recognised in the other Member States without any special procedure being required. 2. Any interested party who raises the recognition of a judgment as the principal issue in a dispute may, in accordance with the procedures provided for in Sections 2 and 3 of this Chapter, apply for a decision that the judgment be recognised. 3. If the outcome of proceedings in a court of a Member State depends on the determination of an incidental question of recognition that court shall have jurisdiction over that question.’

14 Article 34 of that regulation provides: ‘A judgment shall not be recognised: 1. if such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State in which recognition is sought; … 3. if it is irreconcilable with a judgment given in a dispute between the same parties in the Member State in which recognition is sought; …’

15 Article 35 of Regulation No 44/2001 is worded as follows: ‘1. Moreover, a judgment shall not be recognised if it conflicts with Sections 3, 4 or 6 of Chapter II, or in a case provided for in Article 72. 2. In its examination of the grounds of jurisdiction referred to in the foregoing paragraph, the court or authority applied to shall be bound by the findings of fact on which the court of the Member State of origin based its jurisdiction. 3. Subject to … paragraph 1, the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin may not be reviewed. The test of public policy referred to in point 1 of Article 34 may not be applied to the rules relating to jurisdiction.’

16 Under Article 43(1) of that regulation: ‘The decision on the application for a declaration of enforceability may be appealed against by either party.’

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

17 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) repealed and replaced Regulation No 44/2001.

18 Recital 12 of Regulation No 1215/2012 is worded as follows: ‘This Regulation should not apply to arbitration...