Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:1998:509
Date: 1998-10-27
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968;Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 - Jurisdiction
Concepts: Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict;Number of defendants;General
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment
1. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement ofJudgments— Special jurisdiction in 'mat­
ters relating to a contract' and 'matters relating to tort, delict or quasi delict' — Goods dam­
aged on completion of a voyage by sea then by land— Action for compensation by the con­
signee against the actual maritime carrier who did not issue the bill of lading — Action
concerning a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi delict — Place where the harmful event
occurred —Determination —Place where the damage arose — Place of delivery of the goods
by the maritime carrier
(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 5, points 1 and 3)
I-6511
SUMMARY — CASE C-51/97
2. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments — Special jurisdiction — More
than one defendant —Jurisdiction of the courtsfor the place whereanyone of the co-defendants
is domiciled — Condition — Co-defendant domiciled in a Contracting State
(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 6, point 1)
1. An action by which the consignee of goods
found to be damaged on completion of a
transport operation by sea and then by
land, or by which his insurer who has been
subrogated to his rights after compen­
sating him, seeks redress for the damage
suffered, relying on the bill of lading cov­
ering the maritime transport, not against
the person who issued that document on
his headed paper but against the person
whom the plaintiff considers to be the
actual maritime carrier, does not fall within
the scope of matters relating to a contract
within the meaning of Article 5, point 1,
of the Convention of 27 September 1968
on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of
Judgments in Civil and Commercial Mat­
ters, as amended by the Convention of 9
October 1978 on the Accession of the
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, by the Convention of
25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
Hellenic Republic and by the Convention
of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the
Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
Republic, since the bill of lading in ques­
tion does not disclose any contractual rela­
tionship freely entered into between the
consignee and the defendant.
Such an action is, however, a matter relating
to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the
meaning of Article 5, point 3, of that
Convention, since that concept covers all
actions which seek to establish the liability
of a defendant and are not related to mat­
ters of contract within the meaning of
Article 5, point 1. As regards determining
the 'place where the harmful event
occurred' within the meaning of Article 5,
point 3, the place where the consignee, on
completion of a transport operation by sea
and then by land, merely discovered the
existence of the damage to the goods deliv­
ered to him cannot serve to determine that
place. Whilst it is true that the abovemen-
tioned concept may cover both the place
where the damage occurred and the place
of the event giving rise to it, the place
where the damage arose can, in the cir­
cumstances described, only be the place
where the maritime carrier was to deliver
the goods.
2. Article 6, point 1, of the Convention of 27
September 1968 must be interpreted as
meaning that a defendant domiciled in a
Contracting State cannot, on the basis of
that provision, be sued in another Con­
tracting State before a court seised of an
action against a co-defendant not domi­
ciled in a Contracting State on the ground
that the dispute is indivisible rather than
merely displaying a connection. The objec­
tive of legal certainty pursued by the Con­
vention would not be attained if the fact
that a court in a Contracting State had
accepted jurisdiction as regards one of the
defendants not domiciled in a Contracting
State made it possible to bring another
defendant, domiciled in a Contracting
State, before that same court in cases other
than those envisaged by the Convention,
thereby depriving him of the benefit of
the protective rules laid down by it.
I - 6512