CJUE C-412/10, Homawoo / GMF Assurances, hotărârea din 17.11.2011

Extrasele exacte din hotărâre la care trimit ghidurile.

1. Dispozitiv; PDF p. 15 / ECR I-11636 · limba originalului: en

   Articles 31 and 32 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual ob ligations (‘Rome II’), read in conjunction with Article 297 TFEU, must be inter preted as requiring a national court to apply the Regulation only to events giv ing rise to damage occurring after 11 January 2009 and that the date on which the proceedings seeking compensation for damage were brought or the date on which the applicable law was determined by the court seised have no bearing on determining the scope ratione temporis of the Regulation.

   Textul în documentul-sursă ↗

2. Punctul 27 până la dispozitiv (text primar consecutiv) · limba originalului: en

   27 Admittedly, three language versions of the title of Article 32 of the Regulation (‘In­ werkingtreding’, ‘Data intrării în vigoare’ and ‘Entrada en vigor’) refer to the term Entry into force’. However, even in those three versions, the content of the article re fers to 11 January 2009 as being the date set of application of the Regulation. 28 As the Advocate General has noted in point 39 of his Opinion, it is clear from the Court’s case-law that the need for a uniform interpretation of European Union acts makes it impossible, in case of doubt, for the text of a provision to be considered in isolation but requires, on the contrary, that it should be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions existing in the other official languages (see, in particular, Case 9/79 Koschniske [1979] ECR 2717, paragraph 6, and Case C-199/08 Eschig [2009] ECR I-8295, paragraph 54). 29 In the present case, in the light of the content of the provision which is the same in all of the language versions, it must be held that Article 32 of the Regulation does not set the date for its entry into force but sets the date of its application. I  -  11634 JUDGMENT OF 17. 11. 2011 — CASE C-412/10 30 It follows that, as there is no specific provision that sets the date for the entry into force of the Regulation, that date must be determined in accordance with the general rule laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 297(1) TFEU. As the Regulation was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 31  July 2007, it entered into force on 20 August 2007, that is to say the 20th day following that of its publication. 31 That finding is confirmed by the fact that the Regulation imposes certain obligations on Member States and on the Commission from that date. Thus, in accordance with Article 29 of that regulation, before the date of application of the Regulation, and spe cifically by 11 July 2008, Member States were required to notify the Commission of the international conventions adopted in this area to which they are parties, and the Commission was required to publish a list of those conventions in the Official Journal of the European Union. 32 Furthermore, pursuant to Article 30(2) of that regulation, the Commission was re quired to submit, not later than 31 December 2008, a study on the situation in the field of the law applicable to non-contractual obligations to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. Those obligations had therefore to be fulfilled before 11 January 2009, the date laid down in Article 32 of the Regulation for its application to all persons concerned. 33 In those circumstances, Article 31 of that regulation which, according to its title con cerns its ‘Application in time’, may not be interpreted without taking account of the date of application laid down in Article 32 of that regulation, that is to say 11 January 2009. It must therefore be held that, under Article 31, the Regulation applies to events giving rise to damage occurring after that date. I  -  11635 HOMAWOO 34 Such an interpretation is the only one which ensures, in accordance with recitals 6, 13, 14 and 16 of the Regulation, the full attainment of the Regulation’s objectives, that is to say the predictability of the outcome of litigation, legal certainty as to the law applicable and the uniform application of that regulation in all the Member States. 35 By contrast, those objectives are likely to be compromised if the Regulation were ap plied to events occurring between its entry into force and the date set by Article 32. Indeed, as noted by the applicant in the main proceedings, the United Kingdom Gov ernment and the Commission, it cannot be ruled out that two events occurring on the same day, before 11 January 2009, might then be governed by different laws depend ing on the date on which the proceedings seeking compensation for damage were brought and that on which the applicable law was determined by the court seised. Furthermore, the obligations arising from an event occurring in the same place giving rise to damage to several people might be governed by different laws depending on the outcome of different legal proceedings. 36 Neither the date on which proceedings were brought nor that on which the applicable law was determined by the national court therefore have a bearing on determining the scope ratione temporis of the Regulation. As is apparent from Article 31 of the Regulation, the only time to be taken into account is that when the event causing the damage occurred. 37 In those circumstances, the answer to the questions referred is that Articles 31 and 32 of the Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 297 TFEU, must be interpreted as requiring a national court to apply the Regulation only to events giving rise to damage occurring after 11 January 2009 and that the date on which the proceedings seeking compensation for damage were brought or the date on which the applicable law was determined by the court seised have no bearing on determining the scope ratione temporis of the Regulation. I  -  11636 JUDGMENT OF 17. 11. 2011 — CASE C-412/10 Costs 38 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the ac tion pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules: Articles 31 and 32 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual ob ligations (‘Rome II’), read in conjunction with Article 297 TFEU, must be inter preted as requiring a national court to apply the Regulation only to events giv ing rise to damage occurring after 11 January 2009 and that the date on which the proceedings seeking compensation for damage were brought or the date on which the applicable law was determined by the court seised have no bearing on determining the scope ratione temporis of the Regulation. [Signatures]

   Textul în documentul-sursă ↗