JURE SUMMARY

JURE SUMMARY

Following a traffic accident in France, the Belgian victims sought material and immaterial damages before the Court in Antwerp (BE) from a French company. The French company challenged the international jurisdiction of the court seised. The appellate court held that Article 5(3) Brussels Convention served to safeguard the interests of the victims. As the damages (medical costs, funeral services, loss of income, as well as immaterial damages) were incurred in Belgium, the plaintiffs could not be ordered to bring proceedings in France. Rather, the Belgian courts had jurisdiction. The French company appealed. The Cour de Cassation (BE) holds that according to Article 5(3) Brussels Convention, the defendant may be sued before the courts at the place where the harmful event occurred. On the basis of the ECJ's jurisprudence, the court finds that the place where the harmful event occurred has to be interpreted as the place where the direct consequences of the original event were incurred by the victim. Therefore, an action cannot be brought before the court of the place where the harmful consequences of an event arose, which had already led to (initial) damages in another Member State. The same applies to an action regarding the financial consequences of the physical damages suffered in another Member State. Thus, the court holds that the appellate court of Antwerp (BE) erred in accepting jurisdiction and overrules the latter's judgment.