Category Archives: Brussels I regulation

Brussels I regulation, Consumer protection, EU Banking & Financial Law

Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Consumer, domiciled in one Member State, having purchased securities issued by a bank in another Member State from an intermediary established in a third member State

January 28, 2015 pepartsch

Judgment C-375/13 28.01.2015	Parties	Jurisdiction	Formation	Judge Rapporteur	Advocate General	Subject-matter
Request for a preliminary ruling	Harald Kolassa v Barclays Bank plc	CJEU	4^th Chamber	M. Safjan	M. Szpunar	Brussels I Regulation – Financial law and consumer protection
Keywords	Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Consumer, domiciled in one Member State, having purchased securities issued by a bank in another Member State from an intermediary established in a third member State – Jurisdiction for actions brought against the issuer of those securities
Significant points	1. Under which provision of Brussels I Regulation may an applicant who, as a consumer, has acquired a bearer bond from a third party professional invoke jurisdiction for the purposes of an action brought against the issuer of the bond on the basis of the bond conditions, breach of the information and control obligations and liability for the prospectus? a. Not under Article 15 (1) 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 due to the lack of an agreement between the consumer and the issuer of the bond. b. Not under Article 5 (1) (a) of Regulation No 44/2001 due to the lack of a legal obligation freely consented to by the issuer towards the applicant. c. In so far as that liability is not based on a matter relating to a contract, within the meaning of Article 5 (1) of the Regulation, under Article 5 (3) of Regulation No 44/2001. In this respect, the courts where the applicant is domiciled have jurisdiction, on the basis of the place where the loss occurred, to hear and determine such an action, particularly when the damage alleged occurred directly in the applicant`s bank account held with a bank established within the area of jurisdiction of those courts. 2. In the context of the determination of international jurisdiction under Regulation No 44/2001, it is not necessary to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the evidence in relation to the disputed facts that are relevant both to the question of jurisdiction and to the existence of the claim. It is, however, permissible for the court hearing the case to examine its international jurisdiction in the light of all the information available to it, including, where appropriate, the allegations made by the defendant.
Noteworthy	Articles 15(1), 5(1) and 5(3) of the Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted strictly since they constitute respectively a derogation from the general rule of jurisdiction laid down in Article 2 (1) of the regulation/rules of special jurisdictions for contracts, tort, delict or quasi-delict. This being said, the Kolossa judgment brings valuable clarifications to the Kronhofer judgment (C-168/02) regarding the jurisdiction of the courts where the applicant is domiciled under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001. Provided that the bank account in which the loss occurred is held within the Member State of residence of the plaintiff (by contrast to the situation in the Kronhofer case), they are competent.

Brussels I regulation

Regulation (EC) No 44/2001— Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict

January 22, 2015 pepartsch

Judgment C-441/13 22.1.2015	Parties	Jurisdiction	Formation	Judge Rapporteur	Advocate General	Subject-matter
Reference for a preliminary ruling	Pez Hejduk V Energie Agentur. NRW GmbH	CJEU	4^th Ch.	M. Safjan	/	Brussels I Regulation
Keywords	Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Article 5(3) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Copyright — Dematerialised content — Placing online — Determination of the place of the event giving rise to the damage — Criteria
Significant points	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 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an allegation of infringement of copyright and rights related to copyright guaranteed by the Member State of the court seised, that court has jurisdiction, on the basis of the place where the damage occurred, to hear an action for damages in respect of an infringement of those rights resulting from the placing of protected photographs online on a website accessible in its territorial jurisdiction. That court has jurisdiction only to rule on the damage caused in the Member State within which the court is situated. In this respect, unlike Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001, which was interpreted in the judgment in Pammer and Hotel Alpenhof (C‑585/08 and C‑144/09, EU:C:2010:740), Article 5(3) does not require, in particular, that the activity concerned be ‘directed to’ the Member State in which the court seised is situated (see judgment in Pinckney, EU:C:2013:635, paragraph 42).
Noteworthy

Brussels I regulation, Competition law

Brussels I Regulation – EU competition law – damages claim

October 23, 2014 pepartsch

Judgment C-302/13 23.10.2014	Parties	Jurisdiction	Formation	Judge Rapporteur	Advocate General	Subject-matter
Appeal	Fly LAL-Lithuanian Airlines AS, in liquidation	CJEU	Third Ch.	C. Toader	J. Kokott	Brussels Regulation
Key-words	Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 1(1) — Scope — Civil and commercial matters — Claim for compensation in respect of damage resulting from alleged infringements of European Union competition law — Reductions in airport charges — Article 22(2) — Exclusive jurisdiction — Dispute in proceedings concerning companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons — Decision granting reductions — Article 31 — Request for recognition and enforcement of a judgment ordering provisional or protective measures — Article 34(1) — Grounds for refusal of recognition — Public policy in the State in which recognition is sought)
Summary	Article 1(1) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that an action, seeking legal redress for damage resulting from alleged infringements of European Union competition law, comes under the notion of “civil and commercial matters” within the meaning of that provision and, therefore, falls within the scope of that regulation. In this respect, it is of no import that the defendant is subject, as regards the determination of the rates of airport charges and reduction in those charges, to generally applicable statutory provisions of a Member State. Article 22(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that such an action does not constitute proceedings which have as their object the validity of the decisions of organs of companies within the meaning of that provision. Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that neither the detailed rules for determining the amount of the sums which are the subject of the provisional and protective measures granted by a judgment in respect of which recognition and enforcement are requested, in the case where it is possible to follow the line of reasoning which led to the determination of the amount of those sums, and even where legal remedies were available which were used to challenge such methods of calculation, nor the mere invocation of serious economic consequences constitute grounds establishing the infringement of public policy of the Member State in which recognition is sought which would permit the refusal of recognition and enforcement in that Member State of such a judgment given in another Member State.
Noteworthy	As far as I know, the CJEU has acknowledged for the first time that lack of reasoning may be grounds for refusal of recognition of a judgment other than a default judgment, in contrast to the situations at hand in the cases Krombach (C-79/98), ASML Netherlands BV (C-283/05) and Trade Agency Ltd. As a result, the right to a fair trial is increasingly susceptible to undermine the efficiency of the mechanism of recognition and enforcement laid down by the Brussels Regulation.

Weekly update of CJEU and EFTA Court case law in various areas of EU law.