Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2009:475
Date: 2009-07-16
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Concepts: Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments – Civil and commercial matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Judgment Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 44/2001 – Special jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Arts 2 and 5(3)) Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in a dispute concerning the damage caused to an undertaking by the delivery of a contaminated chemical product which rendered unusable the fertiliser that the undertaking produces from a number of raw materials and by the processing of that product, the words ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ designate the place where the initial damage occurred as a result of the normal use of the product for the purpose for which it was intended. Article 5(3) covers not only the place of the event giving rise to the damage but also the place where the damage occurred, such as the factory of an undertaking in which that undertaking processed a defective product causing material damage to the processed product suffered by the undertaking, going beyond the damage inherent in the product itself. In that connection, taking account of the place where the damage occurred, other than the place of the event giving rise to the damage, enables the court which is most appropriate to deal with the case to take jurisdiction, in particular on the grounds of proximity and ease of taking evidence. By contrast, to decide in favour only of the place of the event giving rise to the damage would, in a significant number of cases, cause confusion between the heads of jurisdiction laid down by Articles 2 and 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001, with the result that the latter provision would, to that extent, lose its effectiveness. (see paras 23-24, 29-32, operative part)