EUPillar OLG Frankfurt/Main, 5.8.2010

Summary

The German plaintiff claims compensation for damages caused by the withholding of ad-hoc-announcements in securities trading by the Dutch defendant. Through this withholding, the stock price of the defendant’s share was manipulated and the plaintiff bought them for an unjustified high price. The plaintiff brought his action before the Regional Court of Frankfurt/Main which stated its lack of jurisdiction and made a referral to the Regional Court of Munich. This court also denied its jurisdiction and requested the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt/Main to determine the jurisdiction in this case. The court considers Brussels I applicable based on Art. 2 Brussels I and the cross-border element of the case and refers to Art. 5(3) as the rule of jurisdiction. It interprets the terms delict, quasi-delict and torts autonomously as any liability for damages that is not based on a contract. The plaintiff bases his claims on §§ 37b, 37c WpHG (German Securities Trading Act) and not on a contract. The place where the harmful event occurred is defined as the place where the harm arose and the place where the harmful event took place. As scientific literature and jurisdiction state unanimously it is irrelevant that further damage may have occurred at a different place. Following these criterions, the court considers the location of the stock exchange where the affected shares were traded the place where the harm arose as this is the place where the share price is formed. In doing so, the court meets the requirement imposed by the CJEU that the competent court should be easily determinable. Moreover, the autonomous interpretation of Art. 5 no.3 is consistent with both the literature's and the jurisdiction's guidelines. The determination of the place where the harm arose is logical and easily understandable. It’s worth noting that this connecting point isn’t always unambiguously as some shares may be traded on different stock exchanges.