## Facts

- A French mining company, Mines de Potasse d’Alsace S.A., discharged saline waste into the Rhine in France.
- A Dutch nursery, Handelskwekerij G.J. Bier B.V., used Rhine water in the Netherlands for irrigation and alleged that increased salinity caused downstream damage and economic loss.
- Bier and a Dutch water-quality foundation sued the French company in the Netherlands in tort.
- The defendant challenged Dutch jurisdiction under the 1968 Brussels Convention.
- The Dutch appellate court referred to the Court of Justice the interpretation of Article 5(3), which permits suit “in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred.”

## Issues

1. Under Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention, when the causal event occurs in one Member State and the damage occurs in another, does “the place where the harmful event occurred” mean the place of the causal event, the place of damage, or both?

## Decision

- The Court held that “the place where the harmful event occurred” covers both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to the damage.
- The plaintiff may choose to sue either in the courts of the place of damage or in the courts of the place of the causal event.
- The Court issued an interpretive ruling only; it did not resolve the underlying tort claim, which remained for the referring court.

## Legal Principles

- For cross-border torts under Article 5(3), special jurisdiction exists in either (a) the place where the damage occurs or (b) the place of the event giving rise to the damage.
- This dual connecting-factor approach is justified by a close connection between the dispute and the competent courts, supporting sound administration of justice and predictability.
- Special jurisdiction provisions operate as exceptions to the general rule of jurisdiction at the defendant’s domicile and are interpreted narrowly while still giving effect to their purpose.
- Application of tort-based special jurisdiction presupposes an alleged causal link between the event giving rise to the damage and the damage claimed.

## Conclusion

The Court interpreted Article 5(3) to allow a claimant in a cross-border tort to sue, at its option, either where the harmful conduct occurred or where the resulting damage was suffered, leaving the national court to apply that interpretation to the jurisdictional challenge.


Handelskwekerij G.J. Bier B.V. v. Mines de Potasse d’Alsace S.A., Case 21/76, [1976] E.C.R. 1735 (C.J.E.U. 1976)