EUPillar LG Düsseldorf, 29.4.2011

Summary

The plaintiff brought an action for damages. The court discussed the international jurisdiction of German courts and made a request to the CJEU concerning the question whether Art. 5 no. 3 Brussels I must be interpreted as permitting 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 [see paragraph 19 of the judgment]. The question was answered by the court in 2013 (C-228/11). The court stated that Article 5 no. 3 Brussels I 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 [see paragraph 42 of the judgment]. The court stated among other aspects that the connecting factor based on the defendant’s acts is, as a matter of principle, absent when one focuses on the act of the presumed perpetrators [see paragraph 30 of the judgment].