Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered on 23 November 1989

1 Original language: French.

2 Judgment of 30 November 1976 in Case 21/76 [1976] ECR 1735.

3 Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

4 See however the opinion of J. D. González Campos (Eighth Conference of Professors of International Law and International Relations, Barcelona, July 1984), who considers that judgment to be merely a sentencia puente which may be followed by decisions which represent a departure from previous case-law, cited by Mr Desantes Real in La competencia judicial en la Comunidad europea, 1986, p. 295.

5 Case 21/76, supra, paragraph 18.

6 Dalloz Sirey, 1977, B 54, p. 613.

7 Revue critique de droit international privé, 1977, Jurisprudence, p. 563.

8 Journal du droit international, 1977, p. 728: in an article devoted to the decision of the Court, this author, together with J. M. Bischoff, considers that one of the major trends in the case-law of the Court in its interpretation of the Convention is its wish to avoid fragmentation of the problems submitted to it (and the segmentation of jurisdiction which might result) and its concern, on the contrary, to pursue a degree of unity by bringing the incidental issues to the main issues, the act or event which is the consequence to the act or event which is the cause (Chronique de jurisprudence de la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes, Journal du droit international, 1982, p. 463).

9 T. Harvey: The place of commission of a tort, European Law Review, Vol. 2/1977, No 2, p. 143; J. K. Bentil: Delictual liability within the EEC, The Scott Law Times, 1978, No 2, p. 13; P. M. North and J. J. Fawcett: Jurisdiction under the Brussels Convention, m Cheshire and North: Private International Law, 1987, p. 301; D. Lasok and P. A. Stone: Conflict of Latvi in the European Community, 1987, p. 232.

10 D. Lasok and P. A. Stone in Conflict of Laws in tbc European Community, op. cit., state: ... it is thought that the Bier decision docs not preclude the eventual adoption of specific rules for particular torts; e.g. a rule that for the purposes of defamation by a single publication, the relevant place is that of the publication to the third person.

11 D. Lasok and P. A. Stone, op. cit., consider that ... in the case of purely financial loss, determination of the place of injury is likely to present particular difficulties.

12 M. I. Jallès: O afloramento de supranacionalidade num caso de poluição rransfrontetras, Revista de direito e economia. Ano 11/1976, No 2, p. 409; see in particular p. 428 et seq.

13 Mr Desantes Real: La competencia judicial en la Comunidad europea, pp. 310 and 311.

14 A sentença em apreciação é significativa na medida em que está conexada com una questão que começa a pôr-se com frequência nos nossos dias e relativamente à qual é escassa, senão mesmo nula, a jurisprudência que poderemos encontrar: referimo-nos a questão da responsabilidade civil por danos resultantes da poluição do meio ambiente quando essa poluição assume carácter internacional, M. I. Jallès, op. cit., p. 428; Quizá, en fin la utilización de la vía propuesta, aún por explorar, pudiera servirnos de punto de partida para reflexionar sobre el concreto problema planteado al Tribunal comunitario: qué criterios deben presidir la calficación del concepto hecho daûoso en el artículo 5.3, en lo que respecta a la protección general del medio ambiente y, en particular, a la lucha contra la polución fluvial internacional, M. Desantes Real, op. cit., p. 305.

15 Case 21/76, supra, paragraph 15.

16 It should be noted that the French Cour de cassation, giving judgment on a question of domestic law on 11 January 1984 (JCP 1984, IV. 85), took the view that the damage suffered by the indirect victim occurred at the same place as the harmful event. Although, of course, the forum actoris is thus excluded, the judgment may also have rejected an option similar to that adopted in Mines de potasse d'Alsace: see, with respect to the question as a whole, G. Legier: La compétence du tribunal du lieu où le dommage est subi, Dalloz Sirey, 1979, Chronique, p. 161; see also J. Normand: Jurisprudence française en matière de droit judiciaire privé, Revue trimestrielle de droit civil, 1984, p. 360: In fact the solution adopted by the Second Civil Chamber is seen to be necessary by a process of elimination, having regard to the somewhat injudicious results which would follow from an excessively detailed analysis. In this area, in fact, account must be taken of the diversity of the losses, which do not always manifest themselves at the same place, and the plurality of the victims, a factor which adds to the dispersion. The material damage (loss of resources) arises at the place of the death, and the emotional loss at the place where those close to the deceased are informed of it. But both depend on the circumstances of the case. Death is not always instantaneous; it occurs on the way to hospital, to the home of the person concerned The relatives are not necessarily at hand. They are notified wherever they happen to be, at different locations determined by the pattern of their lives, their business or leisure trips. Territorial jurisdiction cannot be anchored in such shifting sands.

17 Judgment of 16 December 1980 in Case 814/79 (1980] ECR 3807

18 The plaintiff in the main proceedings.

19 Case 814/79, supra. Opinion, p. 3836

20 Chronique de jurisprudence de ta Cour de justice des Communautées européennes, Journal du droit international, 1982, pp. 463 and 472.

21 Mecoma BV v Stahlhandel GmbH, Répertoire de jurisprudence de droit communautaire, I-5.3-B7.

22 Répertoire de jurisprudence de droit communautaire, I-5.3-B9.

23 AGIP SpA v British Petroleum Company Ltd (BP) and Oil Chemical and Transport Finance Corporation (OCT) SA, Répertoire de jurispnidence de droit communautaire, I-5.3-B6, Rivista di diritto intemazionale privalo e processuale, 1979, p. 96.

24 Tribunale di Monza, 28 September 1979, Candy SpA v Schell und Stoecker Reinshagen GmbH, Il foro padano, 1979, I, p. 225, note by S. Magelli, Concorrenza sleale e competenza internazionale, which contains the following comment on the decision: L'evento dannoso, infatti, allo scopo di stabilire la competenza giurisdizionale, consiste nelle perdite subite della concorrente nella sua attività (cosi per esempio nel diminuito giro di affari) ma non può coincidere con il danno patrimoniale misurabile nei fondi della sede dell'impresa.

25 Toulouse, 20 December 1976, Gazelle du Palati, 1977.2.607; tribunal de grande instance de Rouen, 8 December 1977, JCP 1978, II. 18861; Aix-en-Provence, 12 January 1979, Dalloz Sirey, 1980.70, note by Y. Lobin; 5 October 1979, Gazelle du Palais, 1979.2.633.

26 In particular. Paris, 9 June 1978, Gazette du Palais, 1978.2.347, note by F Dubois; Rouen, 28 February 1978, Gazelle du Palais, 1978.1238, Versailles, 6 November 1978, Gazelle du Palais, 1979 1, summary, p. 547

27 In a judgment of 27 January 1982 (Gazelle du Palais, 1982, jurisprudence, p. 365), the French Cour de cassation, giving judgment on the old wording of Article 46 of the New Code of Civil Procedure, also held that the place where the damage is suffered is that where the victim is injured and not that of his domicile where he may, perhaps, continue to suffer from his injuries.

28 For example, the cour d'appel, Paris, held that the French courts had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on a [person's] claim for compensation for all the damage suffered by him where his domicile in Paris cannot be regarded as the place where he suffered the damage caused by the distribution of the weekly publication in question abroad (Paris, 19 March 1984, Revue critique de droit international prive, 1985, Jurisprudence, p. 141, note by H. Gaudemet-Tallon). The tribunal de Paris adopted the same solution (29 September 1982 and 27 April 1983, Revue critique de droit international privé, 1983, Jurisprudence, p. 670; 30 June 1984, idem, 1985, Jurisprudence, p. 141). H Gaudemci-Tallon, in two notes both on the judgments cited above and on the judgment of the cour d'appel, criticized that solution and expressed his preference for the view that the damage is personal to the victim, where he is legally established, that is to say at his domicile. However, that author acknowledges that that reasoning leads to recognition of the forum actors

29 Thus, in relation to a dispute between a French artist who had lent pictures for an exhibition in Italy and complained of the condition in which they were returned to him, the tribunal de grande instance, Pans, refused to declare that it had jurisdiction solely on the ground that the damage had been ascertained in Paris (18 October 1978. Vaiarely, dit Yvaral c Caramel and Ram, Repertoire de jurisprudence de droit communautaire, I-5.3-B10)

30 Tīie Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, 1983, Chapter 4, p. 60.

31 Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht, Kommentar zum EuGVÜ, Hamburg, 1987, Article 5, paragraph 45, in particular: Es spricht viel dafür, den Ort des [weiteren] Scnadenseintritts nach erfolgter Rechtgutverletzung für die ZustandigkeitsbegrUndung nicht ausreichen zu lassen. Denn sonst würde die Deliktzuständigkeit auf Kosten des in Art. 2 verankerten Grundsatzes des Beklagtenwohnsitzes stark ausgedehnt und einem Klägergerichtsstand angenähert.

32 See, however, G. Droz who, in his commentary on this Court's judgment in Mines de potasse d'Alsace, appears to take it as settled that a secondary victim's damage is suffered at his domicile (op. cit., p. 613).

33 Y. Lambert-Faivre: Commentaire sous Cass, le Civ., 27 January 1965, D. 1965,619.

34 G. Viney: L'autonomie du droit à réparation de la victime par ricochet par rapport à celui de la victime initiale, D. 1974, Chronique, II, pp. 3 to 6.

35 See colloque à la cour d'appel, Paris, L'évaluation du préjudice corporel dans les pays de la Communauté, preliminary report by A. Dessertine, October 1988.

36 Ziektewet, Wet op de Arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering.

37 G. Viney: L'autonomie du droit à réparation de la victime par ricochet par rapport à celui de la victime initiale, D. 1974, Chronique, II, pp. 3 to 6.

38 Staudinger, Komm, sub § 844 BGB, p. 1357: Das Recht der unerlaubten Handlungen ist von dem Grundsatz beherrscht, daß nur der unmittelbar Verletzte Ansprüche auf Ersatz des daraus entstandenen Schadens hat... ; see also BGH NJW 1979, 1501.

39 Chadwick v British Railway Board [1967] 1 WLR, 912, 914.

40 J. Pauli, ¡n Schneider v Eisovitch [1960] 2 QB 430, 441; Hinz v Beny [1970] 2 QB 40 42: In English law no damages arc awarded for grier or sorrow caused by a person's death. No damages arc to be given for the worry about the children, or for the financial strain or stress, or the difficulties of adjusting to a new life. Damages are, however, recoverable for nervous shock, or, to put it in medical terms, for any recognizable psychiatric illness caused by the breach of duty by the defendant. We should also mention the compensation for bereavement introduced by the Administration of Justice Act 1982, fixed at the flat rate of UKL 3500 — see G. Viney and B. Markesinis: La réparation du dommage corporel, essai de comparaison des droits anglais et fiançais, 1985, p. 78.

41 Backers Bolton [1808], I Camp. 493.

42 Amended by Article 3(2) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982.

43 Sec on this point G. Viney and B. Markesinis, op. cit., p. 74 er seq.

44 Article 495.3 of the Civil Code (indemnizaßäo a terceiros em caso de morte ou lesão corporal).

45 Article 496.2 (danos não patrimoniais).

46 Article 496.3 (danos não patrimoniais).

47 A. De Cupis: Il danno, teoria generale della responsabilità civile, Vol. I, p. 255, In tema di concorso del fatto colposo del danneggiato, Foro it., 1959, I, 966 and 967, Teoria e pratica delairitto civile, p. 544 et seq.; Forchelli: Il rapporto di causalità nell'illecito civile, p. 151, note 51.

48 Andrioli: Colpa della vittima e risarcimento del danno dovuto ai congiunti iure proprio, Milan, 1964, Scritti giuridici in memoria di M. Barberio Corsetti; Duni: Responsabilità da fatti illeciti, Giust. rif., 1966, IV, p. 57 et seq.

49 For: tribunale di Livorno, 12 December 1961, dur. it., 1962, I, 2, 610, note by M. Berti; corte d'appello di Milano, 28 November 1961, Giust, civ., 1962, I. p. 974; tribunale d'Udine, 12 Aprii 1963, Giur. it., 1964, I. 2, 224, tribunale di Genova, 22 May 1974, Rep. Giur. it., 1974, Resp. civ. 127. Against: Corte di cassazione, 20 March 1959, Foro it., 1959, I, 966.

50 Tribunal Supremo, Sala I, 20 December 1930, 8 April 1936, 27 April 1953, 9 June 1969, 26 January 1972, cited by L. Dicz-Picazo and A. Gullon: Sistema de derecho civil, Vol. II, Madrid, 1985, p. 625; see also R. de Ángel Yágüez: La responsabilidad civil, Bilbao, 1988, pp. 317 and 318; L. Diez-Picazo: Estudios sobre la juńsprudencia civil, Vol. I, Madrid, 1979, No 123, p. 296.

51 Some commentators see in the Spanish Law of 6 October 1980 on insurance contracts a condemnation of the decisions of the First Chamber of the Tribunal Supremo, in so far as Article 73 allows a direct action against the insurer to be brought only by the victim and his heirs (see, for a more detailed analysis, L. Diez-Picazo and A. Gullon: Sistema de derecho civil, Vol. II, Madrid, 1985, p. 625).

52 L. Diez-Picazo: Estudios sobre la jurisprudencia civil, op. cit., p 300, states, Así como en el caso de demanda del heredero hay una relación directa conductadaño (muerte), en el caso de demanda de un no heredero la relación es ya indirecta conductamuerte-repercusión de la muerte en el actor, lo cual nos debe llevar a valorar decisivamente la participación del agente en el hecho, pues si fue doloso (homicidio) debe responder de todas sus consecuencias (see Arts 1107, 2, del CC y 104 del Código penal), mientras que si fue debido a culpa o negligencia sólo debe responder del daño que sea consecuencia necesaria (see 1107, 1, del CQ.

53 Judgment of the combined Chambers, 19 December 1962, Opinion of Mr Advocate General M. Dumon, Revue de droit pénal, 1962, 63, p. 568; J. T. 1963, p. 673; RGAR 1963, Nos 7105 and 7092, note by Dalcq; judgment of 17 June 1963, J. T. 1963, p. 710, RCJB 1964, 446, note by Kirkpatrick; judgment of 19 December 1967, Pas. 1968, 537; judgments of 19 October 1976 [Pas. 1977, 213), 15 April 1980 (Pas. 1004, RGAR 1982, 10499), 6 January 1981 (RGAR 1983, 10682), 10 February 1981 (Pas. 623) and 14 April 1981 (Pas. 915), judgments cited by R. André: La réparation du préjudice corporel, p. 301.

54 34/88 SNCFLv Gillet, Surg and Trasolux.

55 In favour: cour d'appel, 18 February 1987, No 8582; cour d'appel, 1 February 1984; tribunal d'arrondissement, Luxembourg, 21 June 1972, Pasicrisie L.22, 299; cour d'appel, 6 December 1983, P v Reckinger; tribunal d'arrondissement, Luxembourg, 9 October 1984, Baltes v Thinnes; cour d'appel, 10 Julv 1985, No 8109, Bulletin St Yves, No 65, p. 50; cour a'appel, 5 January 1987, No 7660; cour d'appel, 1 February 1985, Pasicrisie 1b, 147; cour d'appel, 19 December 1984, Pasicrisie 26, 241; tribunal d'arrondissement, Luxembourg, 30 October 1987, No 1775/87; cour d'appel, 14 July 1987, No 266/87; cour d'appel, 17 February 1989, No 45/89 U. Against: tribunal d'arrondissement, Diekirch, 11 February 1988, No 50/88; cour d'appel, 22 November 1984, No 6347.

56 Cour de cassation, assemblee puniere, 19 June 1981, JCP 1982, No 19712, report by conseiller Ponsard.

57 See J. M. Bischoff and A. Huet: Chronique de jumpnidence de la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes, op. cit., p. 472, in which the authors state: Even if it is admitted that the idea of favouring the victim was not entirely absent in the special jurisdiction established by Anicie 5(3) ... the fundamental rule [of the Convention] despite everything is that the jurisdiction of the forum res prevails. See also P. Gothot and D. Hollcaux: La convention de Bruxelles du 27 septembre 1968, paragraph 89, p. 50, where it is observed that although, during the oral argument in Mines de potasse d'Alsace before the Court of Justice some presented Article 5(3) as being inspired by the idea of favouring the victim the judgment makes no reference to that view and is based essentially on the requirements of the sound administration of justice. See also the opinion of Mr Desames Real, who states that: Este objetivo general de protección a la víctima de poluciones transfronterizas no aparece claramente reflejado ni en la letra ni en el espíritu del articulo 5.3, precepto que, a mi modo de ver, se explica únicamente por consideraciones de buena administración de justicia, para facilitar la instrucción de la causa por el juez más próximo a los hechos del litigio: nada impide que, por ejemplo, esta parte debil perjudicada sea una poderosa multinacional o incluso un Estado, in La competencia judicial en la Comunidad europea, 1986, p. 297. Por an opposing view, see P. Bourel: Revue critique de droll international privé, 1977, p. 571, who considers that the concern to ensure sound administration of justice would have prompted the authors of the Convention, if they had taken account only of that aspect, to provide for compulsory and exclusive jurisdiction in this area.

58 See, on this point, T C Hartley: Civil jurisdiction and judgments; he considers whether or not the victim is favoured and concludes The two main areas in which this problem is likely to arise arc pollution and product liability: in both cases modern opinion tends to favour the plaintiff, 1984, Chapter 4, p. 52

59 Journal de droit international, 1977, p 728, note p. 733.

60 Note in Tribunal de grande instance de Paris', 19 June 1974, Dalloz Sirey, 1975, p. 638; on the more general problem of related actions and that of lis alibi pendens, see F. Pontonio: Problemi di competenza e di litispendenza nel diritto processuale intemazionale con riferimento alla Convenzione di Bruxelles del 27 settembre 1968, Giuffrè, 1978, Voi. XLIII, No 6, p. 811; M. Desames Real: La litispendencia internacional: consideraciones sobre su regulación convencional y futura aplicación en España, Justicia, 1983, No IV, p. 845; E. Blackburn: Lis alibi pendens and forum non conveniens in collision actions after the Civil Instruction and Judgments Act 1982, Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, 1988; P. W. L. Bogaert: lus vigilantibus: tactics of forum shopping under the EEC Judgments Convention, European Competition Law Review, 1988, Vol. 9, editorial.

61 H. Gaudemet-Tallon: Revue critique de droit international privé, 1983, Jurisprudence, p. 670.

62 See also, on this point, in favour of jurisdiction limited to damage occurring within the court's district, G. Droz, Dalloz Sirey, 1977, p. 613, and, in favour of general jurisdiction of the court where the damage is suffered, P. Bourel: Revue critique de droit international privé, 1977, p. 563.

63 G. Droz, supra, H. Gaudemet-Tallon, supra; as I have already pointed out, there appears to be nothing in the Court's judgment in Mines de potasse d'Alsace to indicate such a consequence. As far as legal persons are concerned, such an approach would result in attributing jurisdiction to the courts for the locality of the registered office in all firoceedings concerned with tortious liability in so far as a legal person can always claim that that is the place where it ascertained its financial losses and, consequently, suffered the damage. It is unnecessary to demonstrate the extent to which the forum actoris would then prevail to a very considerable extent.

64 Das EWG-Übereinkommen über die gerichtliche Zuständigkeit und die Vollstreckung gerichtlicher Entscheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen, Systematischer Kommentar von Dr R. Geimer und Prof. Dr R. A. Schütze, Munich, 1983, XVI, p. 633: Gleiches gilt für Ersatzansprüche mittelbar Geschädigter. Deren Ansprüche sind akzessorisch zu denen der unmittelbar Geschädigten. Dies wirkt sich auch zuständigkeitrechtlich aus.

65 Paragraph 17.