CELEX: 62012CA0147
Language: en
Date: 2013-07-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-147/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för Nedre Norrland — Sweden) — ÖFAB, Östergötlands Fastigheter AB v Frank Koot, Evergreen Investments BV (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Court with jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction in ‘matters relating to contract’ and ‘matters relating to tort, delict and quasi-delict’ )

7.9.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 260/14
            
         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för Nedre Norrland — Sweden) — ÖFAB, Östergötlands Fastigheter AB v Frank Koot, Evergreen Investments BV
   (Case C-147/12) (1)
   
   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Court with jurisdiction - Special jurisdiction in ‘matters relating to contract’ and ‘matters relating to tort, delict and quasi-delict’)
   2013/C 260/23
   Language of the case: Swedish
   
      Referring court
   
   Hovrätten för Nedre Norrland
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: ÖFAB, Östergötlands Fastigheter AB
   
      Defendant: Frank Koot, Evergreen Investments BV
   
      Re:
   
   Request for a preliminary ruling — Hovrätten för Nedre Norrland — Intrepretation of Article 5(1) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of 22 December 2001, on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2000 L 12, p. 1) — Whether or not included within special jurisdiction in matters relating to contract or in matters relating to tort, delict and quasi delict — Legal proceedings brought in Member State A against a natural person domiciled in Member State B who was a member of the board of directors of a limited company with its registered office in Member State A, and against a limited company having its registered office in Member State B which held the majority of the shares in the company with its registered office in Member State A — Action seeking a declaration that a member of the board of directors of a limited company is liable for the debts of that company resulting from the failure of the member of the board of directors to carry out certain formalities intended to monitor the financial situation of the company — Action seeking a declaration that the owner of a limited company is liable for the acts of another where the company continues trading despite being undercapitalised and despite the legal obligation to put the company into liquidation
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               The concept of ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi delict’ in Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers actions such as those at issue in the main proceedings brought by a creditor of a limited company seeking to hold liable a member of the board of directors of that company and one of its shareholders for the debts of that company, because they allowed that company to continue to carry on business even though it was undercapitalised and was forced to go into liquidation.;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The concept of ‘the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that as regards actions seeking to hold liable a member of the board of directors and a shareholder of a limited company for the debts of that company, that place is situated in the place to which the activities carried out by that company and the financial situation related to those activities are connected.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               The fact that the claim at issue has been transferred by the initial creditor to another, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, has no impact on the determination of the court having jurisdiction under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.