1. #1 by Nicolò Nisi on 17/09/2018 - 6:16 PM

    I agree that the reasoning of the Court is disappointing and the Court seems to forget that Article 7 also identifies territorially competent courts. However, in the operative part of the judgment, the Court identifies the competent court in “the courts of that investor’s domicile” and not, like in paras 31 and 34, generally in Austrian courts. Accordingly, the Court seems to have Vienna in mind in tis reasoning. That said, considering that the two securities accounts used by Ms Löber for the investment were located in Salzburg and Graz, it seems rather difficult to conclude that the loss occurred directly in the investor’s bank account with a bank established within the jurisdiction of the investor’s domicile (Vienna) courts.

    In my view, despite the vagueness of the Court’s reasoning, the competence of Vienna’s courts should be excluded. The question would then be whether Salzburg and Graz are still relevant for determination of jurisdiction under Article 7(2).

    • #2 by Geert van Calster on 17/09/2018 - 6:53 PM

      Thank you very much indeed, Nicolo! – the court could have been much clearer I believe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: