Summary
Pursuant to Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, Italian courts have jurisdiction over an action for damages in tort brought against persons domiciled in other Member States of the European Union and in Switzerland. In fact, both the initial damages and the event giving rise to the damages – i.e. the offer of financial instruments by a non-harmonised fund without the prescribed authorization of the Bank of Italy and the untruthfulness of the related prospectus – have occurred in Italy. Moreover, said financial instruments shall be deemed to have been placed in Italy, due to the application by way of analogy of the ‘PRIMA’ – place of the relevant intermediary approach’ principle laid down by Article 10 of Legislative Decree of 21 May 2004 No 170. In fact, the accounts of the intermediaries where the registration in favour of the account holder occurs are located in Italy. Pursuant to Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, Italian courts have jurisdiction over an action in tort for prospectus liability arising out of the untruthfulness of a prospectus drafted by an Irish company, since said liability arises from the diffusion of false and/or misleading information. It therefore arises in the place where the prospectus is distributed, i.e. in Italy. An action for damages in tort brought in Italy against persons domiciled in other Member States of the European Union and in Switzerland for the offer of financial instruments by a non-harmonised fund without the prescribed authorization of the Bank of Italy and the untruthfulness of the related prospectus and an action brought in Ireland by one of the companies named as defendants against another of said companies for contractual liability for the obligations of the latter as the depository of said financial instruments are not related actions within the meaning of Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001. Indeed both the relevant facts and the liability regimes are different.