Link: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-05/cp200056en.pdf

Languages: bg es cs da de et el en fr hr it lv lt hu mt nl pl pt ro sk sl fi sv

Court of Justice of the European Union 

PRESS RELEASE No 56/20 Luxembourg, 7 May 2020
Judgment in Case C-641/18

LG and Others v Rina SpA and Ente Registro Italiano Navale

Those organisations could rely on immunity from jurisdiction only in so far as their activities constituted an expression of the public powers of the Panamanian State
In the judgment in Rina (C-641/18), delivered on 7 May 2020, the Court held, first, that an action for damages, brought against private-law corporations engaged in the classification and certification of ships on behalf of and upon delegation from a third State, falls within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 (‘the Brussels I Regulation’)1 and, therefore, within the scope of that regulation, provided that that classification and certification activity is not exercised under public powers, within the meaning of EU law. Secondly, the Court held that the principle of customary international law concerning immunity from jurisdiction does not preclude the national court seised from exercising the jurisdiction provided for by that regulation in a dispute relating to such an action, where that court finds that such corporations have not had recourse to public powers within the meaning of international law.

In 2006, the vessel Al Salam Boccaccio ’98, sailing under the flag of the Republic of Panama, sank in the Red Sea, with more than 1 000 people losing their lives. Relatives of the victims and survivors of the sinking brought an action before the Tribunale di Genova (District Court, Genoa, Italy) against Rina SpA and Ente Registro Italiano Navale (‘the Rina companies’), that is to say against the societies which carried out the classification and certification of the ship which sank and which have their seat in Genoa. The applicants claimed compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses stemming from the Rina companies’ civil liability, arguing that the classification and certification operations were the cause of the sinking. The Rina companies contended that the court seised lacks jurisdiction, relying on the principle of immunity from jurisdiction, since the classification and certification operations which they conducted were carried out upon delegation from the Republic of Panama and, therefore, are a manifestation of the sovereign powers of the delegating State. The court seised, raising the question of the jurisdiction of the Italian courts, referred a question for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice.