This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2004/190/03
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 June 2004 in Case C-168/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, (Austria)): Rudolf Kronhofer v Marianne Maier, Christian Möller, Wirich Hofius, Zeki Karan (Brussels Convention — Article 5(3) — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the harmful event occurred — Financial loss arising from capital investments in another Contracting State)
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 June 2004 in Case C-168/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, (Austria)): Rudolf Kronhofer v Marianne Maier, Christian Möller, Wirich Hofius, Zeki Karan (Brussels Convention — Article 5(3) — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the harmful event occurred — Financial loss arising from capital investments in another Contracting State)
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 June 2004 in Case C-168/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, (Austria)): Rudolf Kronhofer v Marianne Maier, Christian Möller, Wirich Hofius, Zeki Karan (Brussels Convention — Article 5(3) — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the harmful event occurred — Financial loss arising from capital investments in another Contracting State)
OB C 190, 24.7.2004, p. 2–2
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
24.7.2004 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 190/2 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Second Chamber)
of 10 June 2004
in Case C-168/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, (Austria)): Rudolf Kronhofer v Marianne Maier, Christian Möller, Wirich Hofius, Zeki Karan (1)
(Brussels Convention - Article 5(3) - Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Place where the harmful event occurred - Financial loss arising from capital investments in another Contracting State)
(2004/C 190/03)
Language of the case: German
In Case C-168/02: REFERENCE to the Court under the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Rudolf Kronhofer and Marianne Maier, Christian Möller, Wirich Hofius, Zeki Karan - on the interpretation of Article 5(3) of the abovementioned Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the Convention of Accession of 9 October 1978 of the Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1, and amended text p. 77), by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Portugal (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1), and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden (OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1) - the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 June 2004, in which it has ruled:
Article 5(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of Accession of 9 October 1978 of the Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Portugal, and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ does not refer to the place where the claimant is domiciled or where ‘his assets are concentrated’ by reason only of the fact that he has suffered financial damage there resulting from the loss of part of his assets which arose and was incurred in another Contracting State.