Case C-375/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Harald Kolassa v Barclays Bank plc (Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Consumer contracts — 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 bank that issued those securities)
Date: 2015-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: area of freedom, security and justice, bank, civil law, commercial law, conflict of jurisdiction, consumer information








C_2015107EN.01000401.xml










30.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 107/4






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Harald Kolassa v Barclays Bank plc
(Case C-375/13) (1)

((Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Consumer contracts - 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 bank that issued those securities))
(2015/C 107/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Harald Kolassa

Defendant: Barclays Bank plc

Operative part of the judgment







1)


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 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, an applicant who, as a consumer, has acquired a bearer bond from a third party professional, without a contract having been concluded between that consumer and the issuer of the bond, which it is for the national court to verify, may not invoke jurisdiction under that provision 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.










2)


Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, an applicant who has acquired a bearer bond from a third party, without the issuer thereof having freely assumed an obligation towards that applicant, which it is for the referring court to verify, may not invoke jurisdiction under that provision for the purposes of an action brought against the issuer and based on the bond conditions, breach of the information and control obligations and prospectus liability.










3)


Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as applying to an action seeking to put in issue the liability of the issuer of a certificate on the basis of the prospectus relating to it and of breach of other legal information obligations binding on the issuer, 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, 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.










4)


In the context of the determination of international jurisdiction under Regulation No 44/2001, it is not necessary to conduct a comprehensive taking of evidence in relation to 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 seised to examine its international jurisdiction in the light of all the information available to it, including, where appropriate, the allegations made by the defendant.






(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.