Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/6

(Case C-302/13)

(2013/C 226/10)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AS flyLAL Lithuanian Airlines, in liquidation

Defendants: VAS Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga, AS Air Baltic Corporation

Questions referred

1.Is it appropriate to regard as a civil or commercial matter, within the meaning of [Regulation (EC) No 44/2001] (*1) (‘the Regulation’), a case in which the applicant seeks compensation for damage and a declaration of the unlawfulness of the defendants’ conduct consisting in an unlawful agreement and abuse of a dominant position, and which is based on the application of legislative acts of general scope of another Member State, bearing in mind that unlawful agreements are void from the moment they are concluded, and that, on the other hand, the adoption of a rule of law is an act of the State in the sphere of public law (acta iure imperii), to which the rules of public international law relating to the immunity of a State from the jurisdiction of other States apply?

2.In the event that the reply to Question 1 is in the affirmative (the case is a civil or commercial matter, within the meaning of the Regulation), are the compensation proceedings to be regarded as an action having as its object the validity of the decisions of the organs of companies, within the meaning of Article 22(2) of the Regulation, in which case the judgment need not be recognised, in accordance with Article 35(1) of the Regulation?

3.If the object of the action in the compensation proceedings falls within the scope of Article 22(2) of the Regulation (exclusive jurisdiction), is the court of the State in which recognition is sought required to verify the presence of the circumstances listed in Article 35(1) of the Regulation in relation to the recognition of a judgment adopting provisional protective measures?

4.May the public-policy clause contained in Article 34(1) of the Regulation be interpreted as meaning that recognition of a judgment adopting provisional protective measures is contrary to the public policy of a Member State if, first, the principal ground for the adoption of the provisional protective measures is the considerable size of the amount requested without a well-founded and substantiated calculation having been made and, second, if the recognition and enforcement of that judgment may cause the defendants damage for which the applicant, a company which is in liquidation, will not be able to compensate in the event that the claim for compensation is dismissed, which might affect the economic interests of the State in which recognition is sought, and thereby jeopardise the security of the State, in view of the fact that the Republic of Latvia holds 100 % of the shares in Lidosta Rīga and 52.6 % of the shares in AS Air Baltic Corporation?

(*1) 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 21, p. 1).