CELEX: 62017CA0304
Language: en
Date: 2018-09-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-304/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Helga Löber v Barclays Bank plc (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Special jurisdiction — Article 5(3) — Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur — Consumer, domiciled in a Member State, who bought, through a bank established in that Member State, securities issued by a bank established in another Member State — Jurisdiction to hear and determine the tort action brought by that consumer against the bank concerned)

12.11.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 408/23
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Helga Löber v Barclays Bank plc
      (Case C-304/17) (1)
      
      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Special jurisdiction - Article 5(3) - Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict - Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur - Consumer, domiciled in a Member State, who bought, through a bank established in that Member State, securities issued by a bank established in another Member State - Jurisdiction to hear and determine the tort action brought by that consumer against the bank concerned))
      (2018/C 408/28)
      Language of the case: German
      
         Referring court
      
      Oberster Gerichtshof
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Helga Löber
      
         Defendant: Barclays Bank plc
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      Article 5(3) 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 to the effect that in a situation, such as that in the main proceedings, in which an investor brings, on the basis of the prospectus relating to a certificate in which he or she invested, a tort action against the bank which issued that certificate, the courts of that investor’s domicile, as the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred within the meaning of that provision, have jurisdiction to hear and determine that action, where the damage the investor claims to have suffered consists in financial loss which occurred directly in that investor’s bank account with a bank established within the jurisdiction of those courts and the other specific circumstances of that situation also contribute to attributing jurisdiction to those courts.
      
         (1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.