THE single market created in the European Union is expanded in the field of justice, establishing among others the jurisdiction of the courts in civil and commercial matters in EU countries. The European Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters minimises the possibility of concurrent litigation of cases and regulates the automatic recognition of judgments issued in a member state without the need for any other procedure.
With the reservation of exclusive jurisdiction on matters relating to encumbrances burdening immovable properties and tenancies whereby the courts of the member state in which the property is situated have jurisdiction, as well as on matters of companies or other legal persons, patents and the status of entries in public registers, EC 44/2001 determines the scope of jurisdiction of every member state. Based on its provisions, any person who intends to raise a claim or defence can examine the jurisdiction of the court which will try the case and whether it is the appropriate forum. The aforesaid regulation determines general as well as special jurisdiction
(a) in matters relating to contracts, which are tried by the courts of the place of performance of the obligation in question,
(b) in matters relating to maintenance, in the courts of the place where the maintenance creditor is domiciled or habitually resident,
(c) in matters relating to tort in the courts of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur,
(d) as regards a civil claim for damages or restitution which is based on an act giving rise to criminal proceedings, in the court those proceedings were instituted,
(e) as regards a dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment, in the courts of the place in which the branch, agency or other establishment is situated,
(f) as settlor, trustee or beneficiary of a trust created by the operation of a statute, or by a written instrument, or created orally and evidenced in writing, in the courts of the Member State in which the trust is domiciled and
(g) as regards a dispute concerning the payment of remuneration claimed in respect of the salvage of a cargo or freight, in the court under the authority of which the cargo or freight in question has been arrested or could have been arrested to secure such payment.
The provisions of the regulation were examined by the Supreme Court whereby the decision of the court of first instance was set aside and concurrent jurisdiction was given to the District Court of Nicosia. The Supreme Court held that the Court of first instance erroneously interpreted the regulation regarding the harmful event. The case concerned a claim for damages for the loss of profits due to breach of contract and/or fraud and/or impediment due to promises. It stated in its judgment that EC 44/2001 relates to the need to facilitate cross-border procedures to ensure the basic principles of the free movement of persons and goods without the interference of procedural issues.
It primarily aims at simplifying the procedure for identifi cation purposes and the quick execution of any judgment through a single procedure. It provides that a person domiciled in a member state may, in another member state, be sued in matters relating to tort, in the court of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur. The Supreme Court concluded that as long as the action is based on tort, jurisdiction lies with the country where the harmful event occurred and as a result, a person domiciled in one member state may be sued in another.
George Coucounis is a lawyer specialising in the Immovable Property Law, based in Larnaca, Tel: 24 818288, [email protected], www.coucounislaw.com
