CELEX: 62015CA0012
Language: en
Date: 2016-06-16 00:00:00
Title: Case C-12/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands)) — Universal Music International Holding BV v Michael Tétreault Schilling, Irwin Schwartz, Josef Brož (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Article 5(3) — Tort, delict or quasi-delict — Harmful event — Lawyer’s negligence in drafting the contract — Place where the harmful event occurred)

22.8.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 305/7
            
         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands)) — Universal Music International Holding BV v Michael Tétreault Schilling, Irwin Schwartz, Josef Brož
   (Case C-12/15) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Special jurisdiction - Article 5(3) - Tort, delict or quasi-delict - Harmful event - Lawyer’s negligence in drafting the contract - Place where the harmful event occurred))
   (2016/C 305/10)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   
      Referring court
   
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Universal Music International Holding BV
   
      Defendants: Michael Tétreault Schilling, Irwin Schwartz, Josef Brož
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 5(3) of Regulation 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 a situation such as that in the main proceedings, the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ may not be construed as being, failing any other connecting factors, the place in a Member State where the damage occurred, when that damage consists exclusively of financial damage which materialises directly in the applicant’s bank account and is the direct result of an unlawful act committed in another Member State.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               In the context of the determination of jurisdiction under Regulation No 44/2001, the court seised must assess all the evidence available to it, including, where appropriate, the arguments put forward by the defendant.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.