Case C-228/11

Melzer

v

MF Global UK Ltd

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf)

‛Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Special jurisdiction in matters of tort, delict and quasi-delict — Cross-border participation by several persons in the same unlawful act — Possibility of establishing territorial jurisdiction according to the place where the act was committed by one of the perpetrators of the damage other than the defendant (‘wechselseitige Handlungsortzurechnung’)’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 16 May 2013

1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Concepts used in that regulation — Independent interpretation

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001)

2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur — Harmful event imputed to one of the presumed perpetrators of the damage who is not a party to the dispute — Jurisdiction over another presumed perpetrator of the damage who has not acted within the jurisdiction of the court seised — Not permissible

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 5(3))

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 22, 34)

2.  Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow the courts of the place where a harmful event occurred which is imputed to one of the presumed perpetrators of damage, who is not a party to the dispute, to take jurisdiction over another presumed perpetrator of that damage who has not acted within the jurisdiction of the court seised.

   In so far as the jurisdiction of the court of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur constitutes a rule of special jurisdiction, it must be interpreted restrictively and cannot give rise to an interpretation going beyond the cases expressly envisaged by Regulation No 44/2001

   Where only one among several presumed perpetrators of an alleged harmful act is sued before a court within whose jurisdiction he has not acted, the connecting factor based on the defendant’s act is, as a matter of principle, absent.

   A solution which consists in making the identification of the connecting factor dependent on assessment criteria having their source in national substantive law would be contrary to the objective of legal certainty since, depending on the applicable law, the actions of a person which took place in a Member State other than that of the court seised might or might not be classified as the event giving rise to the damage for the purpose of the attribution of jurisdiction under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001. That solution would not allow the defendant reasonably to predict the court before which he might be sued. Moreover, in so far as it would lead to allowing the presumed perpetrator of a harmful act to be sued before the courts of a Member State within whose jurisdiction he has not acted, on the basis that the event giving rise to the damage occurred there, that solution would go beyond the situations expressly envisaged in that regulation and, consequently, would be contrary to its general scheme and objectives.

   (see paras 24, 30, 35, 36, 41, operative part)

Case C-228/11

Melzer

v

MF Global UK Ltd

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf)

‛Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Special jurisdiction in matters of tort, delict and quasi-delict — Cross-border participation by several persons in the same unlawful act — Possibility of establishing territorial jurisdiction according to the place where the act was committed by one of the perpetrators of the damage other than the defendant (‘wechselseitige Handlungsortzurechnung’)’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 16 May 2013

1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Concepts used in that regulation — Independent interpretation

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001)

2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur — Harmful event imputed to one of the presumed perpetrators of the damage who is not a party to the dispute — Jurisdiction over another presumed perpetrator of the damage who has not acted within the jurisdiction of the court seised — Not permissible

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 5(3))

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 22, 34)

2.  Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow the courts of the place where a harmful event occurred which is imputed to one of the presumed perpetrators of damage, who is not a party to the dispute, to take jurisdiction over another presumed perpetrator of that damage who has not acted within the jurisdiction of the court seised.

   In so far as the jurisdiction of the court of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur constitutes a rule of special jurisdiction, it must be interpreted restrictively and cannot give rise to an interpretation going beyond the cases expressly envisaged by Regulation No 44/2001

   Where only one among several presumed perpetrators of an alleged harmful act is sued before a court within whose jurisdiction he has not acted, the connecting factor based on the defendant’s act is, as a matter of principle, absent.

   A solution which consists in making the identification of the connecting factor dependent on assessment criteria having their source in national substantive law would be contrary to the objective of legal certainty since, depending on the applicable law, the actions of a person which took place in a Member State other than that of the court seised might or might not be classified as the event giving rise to the damage for the purpose of the attribution of jurisdiction under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001. That solution would not allow the defendant reasonably to predict the court before which he might be sued. Moreover, in so far as it would lead to allowing the presumed perpetrator of a harmful act to be sued before the courts of a Member State within whose jurisdiction he has not acted, on the basis that the event giving rise to the damage occurred there, that solution would go beyond the situations expressly envisaged in that regulation and, consequently, would be contrary to its general scheme and objectives.

   (see paras 24, 30, 35, 36, 41, operative part)