Dumez France SA and Tracoba SARL v Hessische Landesbank and others: ECJ 11 Jan 1990

ECJ The expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ contained in Article 5(3 ) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters may refer to the place where the damage occurred, but the latter concept can be understood only as indicating the place where the event giving rise to the damage, and causing tortious, delictual or quasi-delictual liability to be incurred, directly produced its harmful effects upon the person who is the victim of that event. Accordingly, the rule on jurisdiction laid down in that article cannot be interpreted as permitting a plaintiff pleading damage which he claims to be the consequence of the harm suffered by other persons who were direct victims of the harmful act to bring proceedings against the perpetrator of that act before the courts in the place in which he himself ascertained the damage to his assets.
ECJ Brussels Convention – Tort, delict or quasi-delict – Interpretation of Article 5 (3) – Indirect victim – Damage suffered by a parent company through financial losses sustained by a subsidiary.


[1990] ECR I-49, C-220/88, R-220/88, [1990] EUECJ R-220/88





Cited by:

CitedMazur Media Limited and Another v Mazur Media Gmbh in Others ChD 8-Jul-2004
Proceedings were brought in England. The respondents sought a stay, saying the company was subject to insolvency proceedings in Germany.
Held: Our domestic insolvency law was not applicable to foreign proceedings, and so could not be used to . .
CitedAMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others SC 1-Mar-2017
AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.134934