Short Reads

Universal Music: Locating purely financial damage

Universal Music: Locating purely financial damage

26.07.2016 EU law

Case C-12/15 of 16 June 2016, ​ECLI:EU:C:2016:449, Universal Music International Holding BV v Michael Tétreault Schilling and Others On 16 June 2016, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ“) ruled that in tort cases, in the absence of other connecting factors, jurisdiction cannot be attributed to the court of the Member State where purely financial damage occurred.

ECLI:EU:C:2016:449

International jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters

The guiding principle of the Brussels I Regulation is that the courts of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled has jurisdiction. However, there are exceptions to this. In the case above, the relevant provision that could confer a special jurisdiction was Article 5(3) (Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation), which provides that in matters relating to tort the defendant may be sued in the courts of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur. Following EU case law, this covers both the place where the damage has occurred (Erfolgsort) and the place of the event giving rise to it (Handlungsort).

In case of purely financial loss, it can be rather complicated to determine the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur. In Universal Music the parties involved disagreed on the determination of the place where the damage occurred.

The facts

Universal Music agreed to purchase the Czech record company B&M in 1998 following negotiations with B&M’s shareholders. The main features of the transaction were set out in a letter of intent. The parties agreed upon the purchase of 70% of the shares of B&M and concluded a share option agreement for the remaining 30%. When Universal Music bought the remaining 30% of the shares in 2003, the formula included in the share option agreement to calculate the purchase price resulted in a much higher price than originally intended.

The case was taken before a Czech arbitration board and the parties settled their dispute for a price five times higher than Universal Music’s intended purchase price. Universal Music brought proceedings before a District Court in the Netherlands seeking to hold the Czech law firm that drafted the share option agreement liable for the difference in costs between the intended price of the shares and the settlement amount plus the costs for the arbitration proceedings and the settlement.

Preliminary questions

Universal Music argued that the Dutch courts had jurisdiction as it paid the settlement amount and the costs associated with the arbitration and settlement out of its assets in the Netherlands, where it is established. The District Court and the Court of Appeal ruled that the Dutch courts did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court decided to refer questions to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling.

The first question was whether the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ (Erfolgsort) can be construed as being the place in a Member State where the damage occurred, if that damage consists exclusively of financial damage which is the direct result of unlawful conduct which occurred in another Member State.

The ECJ first emphasized that the rule of special jurisdiction must be interpreted independently and strictly. According to settled case law, the rule is based on the existence of a particularly close connecting factor between the dispute and the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred.

Subsequently, the ECJ reiterated that the rights and obligations of the parties, including the obligation for Universal Music to pay a greater amount than intended, were established in the Czech Republic. The damage resulting therefrom became certain in the course of the settlement agreed between the parties before the arbitration board in the Czech Republic. According to the ECJ, the loss of some assets happened in the Czech Republic as the damage occurred there. The mere fact that Universal Music paid the financial settlement by a transfer from a bank account held in the Netherlands, did not confer jurisdiction on the Dutch courts.

After referring to previous case law, such as Kronhofer (ECLI:EU:C:2004:364) and Kolassa (ECLI:EU:C:2015:37), the ECJ concluded that it is only where the other circumstances specific to the case also contribute to attributing jurisdiction to the court for the place where purely financial damage occurred, that such damage could confer jurisdiction on the courts for that place. Unfortunately, the ECJ did not provide further guidelines and it remains uncertain what those other circumstances might be.

Related news

16.01.2018 NL law
Overview of Legislative Proposal on Collective Action (NL) - As amended by the Amendment Bill of 11 January 2018

Articles - In the Netherlands, it is possible for a representative entity to bring a "collective action" on an "opt-out basis" under article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code (the "DCC"). However, under the current provisions in Dutch law, the representative entity is not entitled to claim monetary damages. This limitation is likely to be removed in the not too distant future.

Read more

10.01.2018 NL law
Fire, furniture and strict liability for buildings used for business

Short Reads - Persons using a building in the course of running a business might be liable for damage caused by a defect in the building on the basis of strict liability. Such liability exists if there is a link between the origin of the defect and the running of the business. In its decision of 24 November 2017 (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3016), the Dutch Supreme Court clarified how to ascertain whether there is such a link.

Read more

05.01.2018 BE law
Wie bewaakt de bewakers? Vlaanderen schaft substitutierecht inwoners van gemeente af

Articles - Het Decreet Lokaal Bestuur van 21 december 2017 schaft het substitutierecht voor inwoners om namens hun gemeente in rechte op te komen, af. De Vlaamse regering en de Vlaamse decreetgever achten het substitutierecht "weinig zinnig en democratisch verantwoord". Een dergelijke verantwoording van de afschaffing van het substitutierecht lijkt problematisch in het licht van het beginsel van de scheiding der machten. Daarmee rijst de onvermijdelijke vraag: wie bewaakt de bewakers? Wellicht het Grondwettelijk Hof.

Read more

11.01.2018 NL law
Witness examination and the withdrawal of a judge

Short Reads - In its decision of 24 November 2017 (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3016), the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed that a judge is allowed to critically interrogate a witness and remind a witness of his oath. Such action is not an indication that a judge is not impartial or independent.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy and Cookie Policy