CJEU on the jurisdiction of courts of the place where a harmful event occurred
17-07-2013 Print this page
No jurisdiction based on place where a harmful event occurred which is imputed to a presumed co-perpetrator of damage with respect to other presumed perpetrators
"40. It follows from the foregoing that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, in which only one among several presumed perpetrators of the alleged harmful act is sued before a court within whose jurisdiction he has not acted, an autonomous interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001, in accordance with the objectives and general scheme thereof, precludes the event giving rise to the damage from being regarded as taking place within the jurisdiction of that court.
41. Accordingly, the answer to the question referred is that Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 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."
IPPT20130516, CJEU, Melzer v MF Global
C‑228/11 - ECLI:EU:C:2013:305
