Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62017CN0304

Case C-304/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 24 May 2017 — Helga Löber v Barclays Bank PLC

OJ C 269, 14.8.2017, p. 6–7 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

14.8.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/6


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 24 May 2017 — Helga Löber v Barclays Bank PLC

(Case C-304/17)

(2017/C 269/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Helga Löber

Defendant: Barclays Bank PLC

Question referred

Under Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, (1) in non-contractual claims based on prospectus liability where

the investor took his investment decision caused by the defective prospectus at the place where he is domiciled

and, on the basis of that decision, he transferred the purchase price for the security acquired on the secondary market from his account held with an Austrian bank to a clearing account held with another Austrian bank, from where the purchase price was subsequently transferred to the seller by order of the applicant,

(a)

does jurisdiction lie with the court within whose area of jurisdiction the investor is domiciled,

(b)

does jurisdiction lie with the court within whose area of jurisdiction the seat/the account-keeping branch of the bank with which the applicant has his bank account from which he transferred the amount invested to the clearing account is located,

(c)

does jurisdiction lie with the court within whose area of jurisdiction the seat/the account-keeping branch of the bank which keeps the clearing account is located,

(d)

does jurisdiction lie with one of those courts at the choice of the applicant,

(e)

does jurisdiction lie with none of those courts?


(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


Top