Jurisdiction in tort under the Brussels regulations

Abstract

Within the framework of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 this work attempts to scrutinize the special jurisdictional rule for “matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict”, through an analytical approach towards the decisions of the CJEU. The examination takes off from an insight into the autonomous interpretative criterion ascribed to this special jurisdictional ground as presented in article 7(2), eventually developing into an exploration as to the definition, if any, identified with the term ‘tort’ under the Regulation. This work subsequently transits into an examination of the jurisdictional criterion “place where the harmful event occurred or may occur”, offering the reader an informed insight into its dynamic development. Most innovatively, this criterion is analysed in the context of the Internet; the most recent platform for the commission of torts, which has put the sufficiency of this special jurisdictional ground to the test. Finally, this thesis attempts to scrutinize the current position under the Regulation with regards the concurrence of claims in contract and tort. The analysis indicates that as much as it is desired, a definition of ‘tort’ is markedly lacking, with nothing but a sum of miscellaneous decisions of the CJEU vainly attempting to lead the way. The author’s findings indicate that in the context of the interpretation of the “place where the harmful event occurred or may occur”, the dichotomous approach of the lex loci damni and the lex loci delicti commissi has broadened the application of the special jurisdictional ground in article 7(2) to such an extent, that the general rule that a defendant should be sued in the place of his domicile risks becoming redundant. Furthermore, the traditional jurisdictional rules in question have proven inadequate in the case of infringements over the internet, and thus possible solutions are brought forward. In the context of the issue of concurrence of claims, the analysis indicates that although the CJEU has shed some light on the position under the Regulation, further confirmation is awaited.