Case C-709/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 25 September 2019 — Vereniging van Effectenbezitters v BP plc
Date: 2019-09-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, bank deposit, damages, investment company, investment protection, jurisdiction, trade information








C_2020019EN.01000901.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 25 September 2019 — Vereniging van Effectenbezitters v BP plc
(Case C-709/19)
(2020/C 19/11)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Vereniging van Effectenbezitters

Respondent: BP plc

Questions referred







1.








(a)


Should Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1; ‘the Brussels Ia Regulation) be interpreted as meaning that the direct occurrence of purely financial damage to an investment account in the Netherlands or to an investment account of a bank and/or investment firm established in the Netherlands, damage which is the result of investment decisions influenced by globally distributed but incorrect, incomplete and misleading information from an international listed company, constitutes a sufficient connecting factor for the international jurisdiction of the Netherlands courts by virtue of the location of the occurrence of the damage (‘Erfolgsort’)?










(b)


If not, are additional circumstances required to justify the jurisdiction of the Netherlands courts and what are those circumstances? Are the additional circumstances referred to [in point 4.2.2. of the request for a preliminary ruling] sufficient to found the jurisdiction of the Netherlands courts?














2.


Would the answer to Question 1 be different in the case of a claim brought under Article 3:305a of the BW (Burgerlijk Wetboek: Netherlands Civil Code) by an association the purpose of which is to defend, in its own right, the collective interests of investors who have suffered damage as referred to in Question 1, which means, among other things, that neither the places of domicile of the aforementioned investors, nor the special circumstances of individual purchase transactions or of individual decisions not to sell shares which were already held, have been established?










3.


If courts in the Netherlands have jurisdiction on the basis of Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation to hear the claim brought under Article 3:305a of the BW, do those courts then, on the basis of Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation, also have international and internal territorial jurisdiction to hear all subsequent individual claims for compensation brought by investors who have suffered damage as referred to in Question 1?










4.


If courts in the Netherlands as referred to in Question 3 above have international, but not internal, territorial jurisdiction to hear all individual claims for compensation brought by investors who have suffered damage as referred to in Question 1, will the internal territorial jurisdiction be determined on the basis of the place of domicile of the misled investor, the place of establishment of the bank in which that investor holds his or her personal bank account or the place of establishment of the bank in which the investment account is held, or on the basis of some other connecting factor?