3.8.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 254/4

(Case C-185/15)

(2015/C 254/05)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marjan Kostanjevec

Defendant: F&S Leasing, GmbH

Questions referred

1.Must the term ‘counter-claim’ within the meaning of Article 6(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as extending also to an application lodged as a counter-claim in accordance with national law after, in review proceedings, a judgment that had become final and enforceable was set aside in proceedings on the respondent’s main claim and that same case has been referred back to the court of first instance for fresh examination, but the appellant, in his counter-claim alleging unjust enrichment, seeks refund of the amount which he was obliged to pay on the basis of the judgment set aside delivered in the proceedings on the respondent’s main claim?

2.Must the term ‘matters relating to a contract concluded by a person, the consumer’, used in Article 15(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, be interpreted as extending to a situation in which the consumer lodges his own application, whereby he pursues a claim alleging unjust enrichment, by way of counter-claim for the purposes of national law, linked to the main claim, which nevertheless relates to a case concerning a consumer contract in accordance with the abovementioned provision of Regulation No 44/2001, and whereby the consumer-appellant seeks refund of the amount he was obliged to pay by a judgment (subsequently) set aside, delivered in proceedings on the respondent’s main claim, and therefore refund of the amount deriving from a case concerning consumer contracts?

If, in the case described above, jurisdiction cannot be based either on the jurisdictional rules for counter-claims or on the jurisdictional rules for consumer contracts:

(a)must the term ‘matters relating to a contract’ in Article 5(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as extending to an action whereby the appellant pursues a claim alleging unjust enrichment, but that is submitted as a counter-claim under national law, linked to the respondent’s main claim, which relates to the contractual relationship between the parties, when the purpose of the claim alleging unjust enrichment is to obtain refund of the amount the appellant was obliged to pay by a judgment (subsequently) set aside, delivered in proceedings on the main claim brought by the respondent, and therefore refund of the amount deriving from a contractual case?

(b)in the case described above, must jurisdiction based on the place of performance within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 be examined on the basis of the rules governing the performance of obligations deriving from a claim alleging unjust enrichment?

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 L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1-23.