Must the term “place where the harmful event occurred” in Article 7, point 2, of [Regulation No 1215/2012] be interpreted as meaning that “the place of the event giving rise to the damage” (Handlungsort) is the place of establishment of the company which offers no redress for the claims of its creditors, if that lack of redress is the result of a breach by that company’s grandparent company of its duty of care towards those creditors?

The court held that the place of establishment of the bankrupt company is where the harmful event occurred, establishing jurisdiction under Article 7(2).

Would the answer to Question 1 be different in the case of a claim made by a foundation which has as its purpose the protection of the collective interests of creditors who have suffered damage as referred to in Question 1?

The answer remains the same, as the foundation's role in defending collective interests does not change the jurisdiction determination.

Must Article 8, point 2, of [Regulation No 1215/2012] be interpreted as meaning that, if the court seised of the original proceedings reverses its decision that it has jurisdiction in respect of those proceedings, such a reversal also automatically excludes its jurisdiction in respect of the claims made by the intervening third party?

If the court reverses its jurisdiction decision for original proceedings, it also loses jurisdiction over third-party claims.

Must Article 4(1) of [the Rome II Regulation] be interpreted as meaning that “the place where the damage occurs” is the place where the company which offers no redress for the damage suffered by its creditors as a result of the breach of the duty of care referred to above has its registered office?

The law of the country where the bankrupt company is established applies, but pre-existing agreements with a choice of law clause may indicate closer connections to another country under Article 4(3).

Jurisdiction lies with company's establishment place for tort claims against grandparent company breaching duty of care.

European Court of Justice · Judgment · Preliminary ruling

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Article 7(2) – Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict – Claim made by a liquidator against a third party in the interests of creditors – Place where the harmful event occurred – Article 8(2) – Application to intervene by a defendant of collective interests – Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 – Scope – General rule)

Rechtsvraag

The central legal issue is whether the court of the company's establishment has jurisdiction to hear a collective action for damages in matters of tort, delict, or quasi-delict, brought by a liquidator in the bankruptcy of a company against its grandparent company that breached its duty of care towards the creditors.

Regel

art. 7(2), Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict, or quasi-delict, allowing the applicant to bring an action in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur)
art. 8(2), Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Jurisdiction for a third-party in an action on a warranty or guarantee, based on original proceedings)
art. 4, Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II) (General rule on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations, based on the place where the damage occurs)

Conclusie

The court concluded that the court for the place of establishment of a company whose debts have become irrecoverable has jurisdiction to hear a collective action for damages brought by a liquidator in bankruptcy. The presence of a foundation defending creditors' interests does not alter this conclusion. If jurisdiction on the original proceedings is reversed, it excludes jurisdiction for claims by intervening third parties. The applicable law for compensation is that of the country where the company declared bankrupt is established, unless a closer connection to another country is established.

Tijdlijn

2004 Between 2004 and 2011, BMA AG granted loans to BMA Nederland BV totaling EUR 38 million.
2011 BMA AG ceased the financial support for BMA Nederland BV.
03-04-2012 BMA Nederland BV filed for bankruptcy and was declared bankrupt.
2018 The Rechtbank Midden-Nederland held that it had jurisdiction to hear the liquidator’s claim based on Regulation (EU) 2015/848.
2019 The court granted the application by Stichting Belangenbehartiging Crediteuren BMA Nederland for leave to intervene in the main proceedings.
02-09-2020 The Rechtbank Midden-Nederland made a decision to request a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU concerning the interpretation of certain regulations.
29-09-2020 The Court of Justice of the European Union received the preliminary ruling request.
28-10-2021 The Advocate General presented his opinion at the sitting.
10-03-2022 The Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its judgment regarding the preliminary ruling request.