브뤼셀 제1규정상 불법행위지관할에 있어서의 행동지와 결과발생지 - 유럽대법원 판례의 개관-

Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation and its predecessor in the Brussels Convention provides for special jurisdiction of the courts of the place of tort. The case law of the European Court of Justice has not hesitated in defining this connecting factor to include both the place of wrongful behavior and the place of harm. In defining the place of wrongful behavior, Article 5(3) provides no requirement that it should be a place where a wrongful act was substantially committed. Therefore, the ECJ has yet to resolve the issue of choosing from multiple places of wrongful behavior. The ECJ has tried to offer more guidance to defining the place of harm in further details. In Dumez France case, the ECJ has narrowly defined it as referring only to the place where a wrongful act "directly produced its harmful effect on the person who is the immediate victim of the event." Meanwhile, the ECJ has been struggling with a fact pattern where a defective goods were delivered and then created a financial harm to the victim (Réunion Européene, Kronhofer and Zuid-Chemie). This development of case law reflects a difficulty in balancing the parties' interests regarding tort jurisdiction in the place of harm.