Abstract

The article discusses the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in case C-342/19 VKI v. VW and the decision of the Polish Supreme Court of 12 May 2022, both connected with the infamous “dieselgate”. The cases concerned claims of the owners of Volkswagen cars equipped with the “defeat devices” that manipulated the emissions tests. The question decided by both courts was whether claimants may enforce their tort claims for damages against the manufacturer in the Member States where the cars where acquired. CJEU found that they do and the Polish Supreme Court followed suit. The article analyses both cases against the background of existing case law of the European Court under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation. According to the well-established case law of the Court, the place of harmful event is to be understood both as the place where the event leading to damage is located, as well as the place where the damage occurred. Regarding the place of damage, the author takes the view that it occurs not in the state where the car is acquired – as found by CJEU - but where it is registered and used. This in itself should not, however, suffice to establish the jurisdiction of the court at the place of damage. In each case (and not only when the damage is purely financial) the court must confirm under the individual circumstances of the case that this place is suitable as the forum for resolving the dispute. Among these circumstances the most important is that of the foreseeability for the defendant that because of his or her actions he or she can be sued at the given forum. This possibility to foresee should be established on the basis of defendant’s actions undertaken in the forum. In cases where a defective product is the source of liability (such as in VKI v. VW) these are in particular: marketing products in that state or directing advertising activities thereto. The paper also compares European solutions with those adopted in US. The author argues that the CJEU should more bold in looking into an American standard that requires “some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws” and thus protect the defendant from being sued in a place of damage that is loosely connected with the case.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call