Brussels I bis

Article 2

Untitled

For the purposes of this Regulation:

(a) '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 a decision on the determination of costs or expenses by an officer of the court.

For the purposes of Chapter III, 'judgment' includes provisional, including protective, measures ordered by a court or tribunal which by virtue of this Regulation has jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter. It does not include a provisional, including protective, measure which is ordered by such a court or tribunal without the defendant being summoned to appear, unless the judgment containing the measure is served on the defendant prior to enforcement;

(b) 'court settlement' means a settlement which has been approved by a court of a Member State or concluded before a court of a Member State in the course of proceedings;

(c) 'authentic instrument' means a document which has been formally drawn up or registered as an authentic instrument in the Member State of origin and the authenticity of which:

(i) relates to the signature and the content of the instrument; and

(ii) has been established by a public authority or other authority empowered for that purpose;

(d) 'Member State of origin' means the Member State in which, as the case may be, the judgment has been given, the court settlement has been approved or concluded, or the authentic instrument has been formally drawn up or registered;

(e) 'Member State addressed' means the Member State in which the recognition of the judgment is invoked or in which the enforcement of the judgment, the court settlement or the authentic instrument is sought;

(f) 'court of origin' means the court which has given the judgment the recognition of which is invoked or the enforcement of which is sought.

Holdings

C-274/2114 Jul 2022

EPIC Financial Consulting Ges.m.b.H. v Republik Österreich and Bundesbeschaffung GmbH

1. Article 1(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that the conclusion of a framework agreement with a single economic operator, in accordance with Article 33(3) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, corresponds to the conclusion of a contract as referred to in Article 2a(2) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2014/23.

C-274/2114 Jul 2022

EPIC Financial Consulting Ges.m.b.H. v Republik Österreich and Bundesbeschaffung GmbH

5. Article 2(1) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2014/23, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as:

precluding national legislation which requires a court with which an application for an interlocutory injunction is lodged seeking to prevent purchases on the part of the contracting authority, to determine, before ruling on that application, the type of contract award procedure concerned, the (estimated) value of the contract at issue and the total number of separately contestable decisions and, where appropriate, the lots from the contract award procedure concerned, for the sole purpose of calculating the amount of the flat-rate court fees which the person making that application must pay, failing which that application would be dismissed on that ground alone, where the contracting authority has opted for a procedure for the award of a public contract without prior publication of a contract notice and, at the time the action for annulment against a decision linked to that procedure is brought, the contract award notice has not been published yet;

not precluding national legislation which requires a court before which an action for the annulment of a separately contestable decision taken by the contracting authority is brought to determine, before ruling on that action, the type of contract award procedure concerned, the (estimated) value of the contract at issue and the total number of separately contestable decisions and, where appropriate, the lots from the contract award procedure concerned, for the sole purpose of calculating the amount of the flat-rate court fees which the applicant must pay, failing which his or her action would be dismissed on that ground alone.

C-568/207 Apr 2022

J v H Limited

Under Article 2(a) and Article 39 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, an order for payment made by a court of a Member State on the basis of final judgments delivered in a third State counts as a judgment and is enforceable in the other Member States, provided it was made at the end of adversarial proceedings in the Member State of origin and was declared enforceable there. Even so, the party against whom enforcement is sought may still apply, pursuant to Article 46, for refusal of enforcement on one of the grounds referred to in Article 45.