Europa 1. A claim for compensation for loss to an individual resulting from a criminal offence, even though made in the context of criminal proceedings, is civil in nature unless the person against whom it is made is to be regarded as a public authority which acted in the exercise of its powers. That is not the case where the activity called in question is the supervision by a state-school teacher of his pupils during a school trip. It follows that ‘civil matters’ within the meaning of the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters covers a claim for damages brought before a criminal court against a state-school teacher who, during a school trip, occasioned loss to a pupil as a result of a culpable and unlawful breach of his duties of supervision, even where there is coverage by a scheme of social insurance under public law. 2. The second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention must be interpreted as precluding any appeal by interested third parties against the judgment given on an appeal against authorization to enforce a judgment given in another Contracting State, even where the domestic law of the State in which enforcement is sought confers on such third parties a right of appeal. 3. Since non-recognition of a judgment given in another Contracting State for the reasons set out in Article 27(2) of the Convention is possible only where the defendant was in default of appearance in the original proceedings, that provision may not be relied upon where the defendant appeared. A defendant is deemed to have appeared for the purposes of Article 27(2) of the Convention where, in connection with a claim for damages made in the context of the criminal proceedings pending before the criminal court, the defendant, through defence counsel of his own choice, answered the criminal charges at the trial but did not express a view on the civil claim, on which oral argument was also submitted in the presence of his counsel.
A claim was made by the parents and brother of a pupil who suffered a fatal accident during a school trip. One of the questions referred to the ECJ was whether an action for damages against a teacher in a state school was a ‘civil’ matter within the meaning of the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of the Brussels Convention.
Held: ‘It follows from the judgments in the LTU and Ruffer cases cited above that such an action falls outside the scope of the Convention only when the author of the damage against whom it is brought must be regarded as a public authority which acted in the exercise of public powers.’ A teacher in a school is not exercising public powers. The substantive duties on a teacher were, so far as concerned the standards of care in relation to the pupils, identical to those owed by all individuals, state employees or not, to those in their care. It followed that the action was a civil matter within the meaning of the Convention.
Citations:
Ind Summary 24-May-1993, C-172/91, [1993] EUECJ C-172/91, [1993] ECR 1-1963
Links:
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – Grovit v De Nederlandsche Bank Nv and Others CA 24-Jul-2007
The claimants sought damages in defamation in respect of a letter faxed by the first defendant to the other defendants in London. The first defendant said that it had state immunity, and the other claimed similar benefits acting as the bank’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European, Jurisdiction
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160734
