CELEX: 62011CA0228
Language: en
Date: 2013-05-16 00:00:00
Title: Case C-228/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Melzer v MF Global UK Ltd (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Special jurisdiction in matters of tort, delict and quasi-delict — Cross-border participation by several persons in the same unlawful act — Possibility of establishing territorial jurisdiction according to the place where the act was committed by one of the perpetrators of the damage other than the defendant ( ‘wechselseitige Handlungsortzurechnung’ ))

3.8.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 225/5
            
         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Melzer v MF Global UK Ltd
   (Case C-228/11) (1)
   
   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Special jurisdiction in matters of tort, delict and quasi-delict - Cross-border participation by several persons in the same unlawful act - Possibility of establishing territorial jurisdiction according to the place where the act was committed by one of the perpetrators of the damage other than the defendant (‘wechselseitige Handlungsortzurechnung’))
   2013/C 225/07
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Landgericht Düsseldorf
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Melzer
   
      Defendant: MF Global UK Ltd
   
      Re:
   
   Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of 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 (OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1) — Special jurisdiction relating to matters in tort or delict or quaisi-delict — Determination of territorial jurisdiction to hear an action for damages in the case of cross-border participation of several people in a single unlawful act — Possibility of establishing that jurisdiction according to the place where the harmful act was committed by a perpetrator other than the defendant
   
      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 2001 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow the courts of the place where a harmful event occurred which is imputed to one of the presumed perpetrators of damage, who is not a party to the dispute, to take jurisdiction over another presumed perpetrator of that damage who has not acted within the jurisdiction of the court seised.
   
      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.