Short Reads

Universal Music: Locating purely financial damage

Universal Music: Locating purely financial damage

Universal Music: Locating purely financial damage

26.07.2016 NL 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

16.01.2020 NL law
Wetgever, koester het burgerlijk procesrecht

Articles - Civiele procedures worden waarschijnlijk niet sneller en eenvoudiger met het Conceptwetsvoorstel modernisering en vereenvoudiging bewijsrecht en de Tijdelijke Experimentenwet rechtspleging. De wetsvoorstellen gaan uit van onjuiste veronderstellingen over het verloop van civielrechtelijke procedures en overspannen verwachtingen van de rol van de civiele rechter als alvermogende geschilbeslechter.

Read more

09.01.2020 BE law
Stibbe benoemt nieuwe Counsels en Of Counsel

Inside Stibbe - Brussel, 9 januari 2020 – Het Brusselse kantoor van Stibbe benoemt Delphine Gillet (EU-recht en mededingingsrecht), Jan Proesmans (arbeids- en pensioenrecht) en Sophie Bourgois (geschillenbeslechting) tot Counsel en Elisabeth Baeyens (geschillenbeslechting) tot Of Counsel. De nieuwe benoemingen gaan in vanaf 1 januari 2020.

Read more

15.01.2020 NL law
The Dutch scheme - a summary of the upcoming new restructuring tool

Short Reads - As mentioned in our earlier blog, the Dutch legislator has prepared a bill – the Act on confirmation of private restructuring plans (Wet homologatie onderhands akkoord) – introducing a framework that allows debtors to restructure their debts outside formal insolvency proceedings (the “Dutch Scheme“). We expect this highly-anticipated bill to enter into force by this summer. The Dutch Scheme combines features from the UK Scheme of Arrangement and the US Chapter 11 proceedings. Below, we summarize certain key aspects of the Dutch Scheme.

Read more

09.01.2020 BE law
Stibbe nomme trois Counsels et un Of Counsel

Inside Stibbe - Bruxelles, le 9 janvier 2020 – Le bureau bruxellois de Stibbe a nommé Delphine Gillet (droit européen et de la concurrence), Jan Proesmans (droit social et des pensions) et Sophie Bourgois (droit des litiges) en tant que Counsels. Elisabeth Baeyens (droit des litiges) est, quant à elle, nommée Of Counsel. Les nouvelles nominations ont pris effet le 1er janvier 2020.

Read more

09.01.2020 BE law
Stibbe announces new Counsel and Of Counsel appointments

Inside Stibbe - Brussels, 9 January 2020 – The Brussels office of Stibbe has promoted Delphine Gillet (EU/Competition), Jan Proesmans (Employment, Benefits, and Pensions) and Sophie Bourgois (Dispute Resolution) to Counsel and Elisabeth Baeyens (Dispute Resolution) to Of Counsel. The new appointments have taken effect on 1 January 2020.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring