Case C-168/02

Rudolf Kronhofer

v

Marianne Maier and Others

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria))

(Brussels Convention – Article 5(3) – Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict – Place where the harmful event occurred – Financial loss arising from capital investments in another Contracting State)

Summary of the Judgment

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Special jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ – Place where the harmful event occurred – Definition – Place of domicile of claimant who has suffered financial loss arising from capital investments in another Contracting State – Excluded

(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 5(3))

Article 5(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcements of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of Accession of 9 October 1978 of the Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Portugal, and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ does not refer to the place where the claimant is domiciled or where his ‘assets are concentrated’ by reason only of the fact that he has suffered financial damage there resulting from the loss of part of his assets which arose and was incurred in another Contracting State.

The term ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ cannot be construed so extensively as to encompass any place where the adverse consequences can be felt of an event which has already caused damage actually arising elsewhere. First, such an interpretation would mean that the determination of the court having jurisdiction would depend on matters that were uncertain and would thus run counter to the strengthening of the legal protection of persons established in the Community which, by enabling the claimant to identify easily the court in which he may sue and the defendant reasonably to foresee in which court he may be sued, is one of the objectives of the Convention. Second, it would be liable in most cases to give jurisdiction to the courts of the place in which the claimant was domiciled. The Convention does not favour that solution except in cases where it expressly so provides.

(see paras 19-21, operative part)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 10 June 2004 (1)

(Brussels Convention – Article 5(3) – Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict – Place where the harmful event occurred – Financial loss arising from capital investments in another Contracting State)

In Case C-168/02

REFERENCE to the Court under the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

and

on the interpretation of Article 5(3) of the abovementioned Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the Convention of Accession of 9 October 1978 of the Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1, and amended text p. 77), by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Portugal (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1), and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden (OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1),

THE COURT (Second Chamber),,

composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges,

Advocate General: P. Léger,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

after hearing the oral observations of Mr Kronhofer, represented by M. Brandauer and R. Bickel, Rechtsanwälte, of Mr Karan, represented by C. Ender, and of the Commission, represented by A.-M. Rouchaud and W. Bogensberger, at the hearing on 20 November 2003,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 15 January 2004,

gives the following

‘Subject to the provisions of this Convention, persons domiciled in a Contracting State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that State.’

‘A person domiciled in a Contracting State may, in another Contracting State, be sued:

...

(3) in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred.’

‘Is the expression “place where the harmful event occurred” contained in Article 5(3) of the Convention … to be construed in such a way that, in the case of purely financial damage arising on the investment of part of the injured party’s assets, it also encompasses in any event the place where the injured party is domiciled if the investment was made in another Member State of the Community?’

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Second Chamber),

0in answer to the question referred to it by the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of 9 April 2002, hereby rules:

Timmermans

Puissochet

Cunha Rodrigues

Schintgen

Colneric

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 10 June 2004.

R. Grass

C.W.A. Timmermans

Registrar

President of the Second Chamber