# C_2015089EN.01001201.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 14 January 2015 — Universal Music International Holding BV v Michael Tétreault Schilling and Others

(Case C-12/15)

(2015/C 089/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Universal Music International Holding BV

Appellant:

Respondents: Michael Tétreault Schilling, Irwin Schwartz, Josef Brož

Respondents:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ can be construed as being the place in a Member State where the damage occurred, if that damage consists exclusively of financial damage which is the direct result of unlawful conduct which occurred in another Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ can be construed as being the place in a Member State where the damage occurred, if that damage consists exclusively of financial damage which is the direct result of unlawful conduct which occurred in another Member State?

1

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:






  (a) | What criterion or what perspectives should the national court apply, when assessing its jurisdiction on the basis of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, in order to determine whether in the present case there has been financial damage which is the direct result of unlawful conduct (‘initial financial damage’ or ‘direct financial damage’) or whether there has been financial damage which is the result of initial damage which occurred elsewhere or damage which has resulted from damage which occurred elsewhere (‘consequential damage’ or ‘derived financial damage’)? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

(a)

What criterion or what perspectives should the national court apply, when assessing its jurisdiction on the basis of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, in order to determine whether in the present case there has been financial damage which is the direct result of unlawful conduct (‘initial financial damage’ or ‘direct financial damage’) or whether there has been financial damage which is the result of initial damage which occurred elsewhere or damage which has resulted from damage which occurred elsewhere (‘consequential damage’ or ‘derived financial damage’)?

| (b) | What criterion or what perspectives should the national court apply, when assessing its jurisdiction on the basis of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, in order to determine where, in the present case, the financial damage — whether it be direct or derived financial damage — occurred or is deemed to have occurred? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

What criterion or what perspectives should the national court apply, when assessing its jurisdiction on the basis of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, in order to determine where, in the present case, the financial damage — whether it be direct or derived financial damage — occurred or is deemed to have occurred?

| 3. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: must Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that the national court which is required to determine whether it has jurisdiction pursuant to that regulation in the present case is obliged, when making its determination, to proceed on the basis of the relevant submissions of the claimant or applicant in that regard, or is it obliged also to take into account the arguments put forward by the defendant to refute those submissions? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: must Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that the national court which is required to determine whether it has jurisdiction pursuant to that regulation in the present case is obliged, when making its determination, to proceed on the basis of the relevant submissions of the claimant or applicant in that regard, or is it obliged also to take into account the arguments put forward by the defendant to refute those submissions?

---

(1)  Council Regulation of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

1

---