## Facts

- An Italian company (Tacconi) and a German company (HWS) conducted advanced negotiations for the sale of industrial machinery intended for Tacconi’s foundry operations.
- The parties exchanged draft contractual and technical materials and discussed conditions such as financing and performance.
- Tacconi alleged it incurred costs and took organizational steps in reliance on the expected contract.
- No contract was concluded; HWS terminated the negotiations.
- Tacconi sued in Italy seeking damages based on pre-contractual liability (culpa in contrahendo), alleging bad-faith conduct during negotiations rather than breach of an existing contract.
- HWS challenged international jurisdiction under the Brussels Convention, arguing the Italian courts lacked jurisdiction.
- The Italian Court of Cassation referred questions for a preliminary ruling on whether such a claim falls within the Convention’s special jurisdiction for contract (art. 5(1)) or tort (art. 5(3)), and how to locate the harmful event if art. 5(3) applies.

## Issues

1. Whether a damages claim based on pre-contractual liability for bad-faith negotiations is a “matter relating to a contract” under Brussels Convention article 5(1) or a “matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict” under article 5(3).
2. Whether the classification depends on how the claim is characterized under national law.
3. If article 5(3) applies, how to identify “the place where the harmful event occurred” for jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The court held that, where negotiations did not result in a contract and there were no obligations freely assumed between the parties, a claim for pre-contractual liability is a matter relating to tort, delict, or quasi-delict under article 5(3), not a matter relating to a contract under article 5(1).
- The classification is autonomous under the Convention and does not turn on national law characterizations.
- For article 5(3), “the place where the harmful event occurred” may mean either the place of the event giving rise to the damage or the place where the damage occurred; the national court must determine the relevant place(s) on the facts.

## Legal Principles

- Brussels Convention jurisdictional concepts require autonomous, uniform interpretation rather than reliance on national classifications.
- “Matters relating to a contract” under article 5(1) presuppose an obligation freely assumed by one party toward another.
- In the absence of a concluded contract and corresponding freely assumed obligations, liability based on breach of legally imposed duties in negotiations (including good-faith duties) falls within article 5(3).
- Under article 5(3), the harmful-event connecting factor may be satisfied by either (i) the place of the causal event or (ii) the place where the damage materialized, subject to factual determination by the national court.

## Conclusion

The court classified bad-faith negotiation (culpa in contrahendo) claims as tort-based for Brussels Convention special jurisdiction when no contract was formed, requiring jurisdiction to be assessed under article 5(3) by locating the relevant harmful event rather than by contract performance under article 5(1).


Fonderie Officine Meccaniche Tacconi S.p.A. v. Heinrich Wagner Sinto Maschinenfabrik GmbH (HWS), Case C-334/00 (C.J.E.U. 2002)