EUPillar OLG Frankfurt/Main, 8.6.2006

Summary

The parties argued on the defendant’s obligation to pay damages. They had concluded a contract regarding trading in futures on a stock exchange. The broker was established in London. The plaintiff’s money has been delivered to a German company who recruited clients for the defendant. This company eventually forwarded the money to the British broker. The courts had to consider the international jurisdiction of German courts. The first instance court denied it. The second instance affirmed it stating that the place where the harmful event occurred within the meaning of Art. 5 no. 3 Brussels I was Germany. The court pointed out that it was relevant that the plaintiff had transferred the money to a German recruiting company and that the unlawful administration of the money has been carried out on a collective account of the German agent. The place where the harmful event occurred would have been London if the plaintiff has had transferred the money directly to the British broker. In the present case the financial damage occurred in Germany where the plaintiff transferred the money. It is however doubtful if this decision can be maintained given the jurisdiction of the CJEU where it has been stated that a pure financial loss wasn’t sufficient to establish the jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 5 no. 3 Brussels I. But, in the present case the relevant factual activities happened in Germany: the plaintiff was domiciled in Germany and also transferred the money to a German company. The court could have made a preliminary reference in order to obtain a clear decision in this issue.