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

20.06.2019 NL law
Stibbe advises Westermeerwind

Inside Stibbe - The District Court Midden-Nederland ruled in favour of Westermeerwind B.V. on 19 June, in a case brought by organisations acting for the 'Westermeerwind Group'. The group had claimed that the 32 members of that group had the right to participate in the Windpark Westermeerwind at a much lower price than other participants, and with a different corporate structure.

Read more

28.05.2019 NL law
Dutch court: insufficient substantiation? No follow-on cartel damages action

Short Reads - Dutch courts are forcing claimants (including claims vehicles) to be well-prepared before initiating follow-on actions. The Amsterdam District Court in the Dutch trucks cartel follow-on proceedings recently ruled that claimants – specifically CDC, STCC, Chapelton, K&D c.s. and STEF c.s. – had insufficiently substantiated their claims. These claimants now have until 18 September 2019 to provide sufficient facts regarding transactions that – according to them – were affected by the cartel. Preparation should thus be key for cartel damages actions.

Read more

04.06.2019 NL law
Dutch Supreme Court clarifies evidentiary rules concerning signatures and signed documents

Short Reads - In two recent decisions, the Dutch Supreme Court has clarified the evidentiary power of signed documents. If the signatory unambiguously denies that the signature on the document is his or hers or claims that another party has tampered with the signature (for instance, through forgery or copying a signature from one document and pasting it in another), it is up to the party invoking the signed document to prove the signature's authenticity (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:572).

Read more

24.05.2019 NL law
European regulatory initiatives for online platforms and search engines

Short Reads - As part of the digital economy, the rise of online platforms and search engines raises all kinds of legal questions. For example, do bicycle couriers qualify as employees who are entitled to ordinary labour law protections? Or should they be considered self-employed (see our Stibbe website on this issue)? The rise of online platforms also triggers more general legal questions on the relationship between online platforms and their users. Importantly, the European Union is becoming increasingly active in this field.

Read more

03.06.2019 NL law
Toerekening van kennis van groepsvennootschappen

Articles - In de praktijk doet zich vaak de vraag voor of kennis die aanwezig is binnen de ene vennootschap kan worden toegerekend aan een andere vennootschap binnen hetzelfde concern. In dit artikel verkent Branda Katan zowel de dogmatische grondslag als de praktische toepassing van een dergelijke toerekening. Zij concludeert dat het ‘Babbel-criterium’ (heeft in de gegeven omstandigheden de kennis X in het maatschappelijk verkeer te gelden als kennis van Y?) geschikt is voor het toerekenen van kennis in concernverband.

Read more

01.05.2019 NL law
Arbitral award obligating Ecuador to prevent enforcement of USD 8.6 billion order does not violate public order

Short Reads - Due to environmental damage as a result of oil extraction in the Ecuadorian Amazon, oil company Chevron was ordered to pay USD 8.6 billion to Ecuadorian citizens. In order to claim release of liability, Chevron and Texaco initiated arbitration proceedings against Ecuador. Arbitral awards ordered Ecuador to prevent enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment, leaving the Ecuadorian plaintiffs temporarily unable to enforce their judgment. According to the Supreme Court (12 April 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:565), these arbitral awards did however not violate public order.

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