General:
courts of the place were the harmful event occurred. 5(3) Brussels I
general rule in art. 2, special jurisdictional rule in art. 5(3). rules of special jurisdiction must be interpreted restrictively and cannot give rise to an interpretation going beyond the cases expressly envisaged by the Regulation.
5(3) close connection between the dispute and the court of the place where the harmful event has occurred
where the place of the harmful event (handlungsort) and the place where that event results in damage (erfolgsort) are not identical, the defendant may be sued , at the option of the plaintiff, in the courts of either of those places. both forums then provide a clear link of jurisdiction because the necessary elements of jurisdiction have occurred in each of the states involved. multiple locus: art 2, handlungsort or erfolgsort.

• erfolgsort must be interpreted restrictively. when an event has already caused the occurrence of damage, other places where the adverse effects are felt as an erfolgsort are not to be taken into account.

scattered delict (libel): adverse effects occur in several places simultaneously. the plaintiff can solely establish compensation for all damages at the forum of art. 2 or in the courts of the Handlungsort on the basis of art. 5(3).
where the close connection between the dispute and the court is lacking only forum of art 2!
autonomous interpretation:
tort, delict, quasi delict is an independent concept. does not refer to the internal law of the member state. autonomous interpretation, having regard to the objectives and general scheme of the Regulation, in order to ensure as far as possible the equality and uniformity of the rights and obligations arising from the regulation for the member states and the persons concerned. interpretation must first be placed in line with the system and the objectives of Brussels I.

• includes all actions which seek to establish the liability of a defendant and which are not related to a contract within the meaning of art 5(1).
• the actual occurrence of damage is not required

scope of 5(3)
all actions which seek to establish the liability of a defendant and which are not related to matters relating to a contract within the meaning of 5(1). wide diversity.
sufficient that commitments to the other party are entered into voluntarily.
also applies in case of a direct claim from the injured party against the insurer of the offender.
the place where the harmful event has occurred
the injured party may chose between art 2, 5(3). it is required that the harmful event has taken place in the state of the 5(3) court.
alternate jurisdiction of the Handlungsort and Erfolgsort
multiple locus.
autonomous interpretation that is intended to cover both the place where the damage has occurred and the place where the harmful event has taken place, consequently the defendant may be sued at the option of the plaintiff, in the courts of either of those places.
Handlungsort
the place where the harmful even originated and from where the act was performed. issued and circulated. were the tort was set in motion.
differnt persons or different acts-> every single action need to be evaluated separately.
Erfolgsort
autonomously: only the place where the damage first manifests, where the initial/primary damage occurs creates jurisdiction.
broad view: damage should include damages for pure financial loss and damages to the person off the plaintiff, that are directly and causally linked to the harmful event.
narrow view: the fact that in the Erfolgsort, physical harm must have occurred to persons and goods forms a prerequisite for the dispersion of the Handlungsort and the Erfolgsort. nonphysical damages and pure financial loss cannot create jurisdiction.


scattered delicts
libel. the courts of each of these places are attributed jurisdiction as erfolgsort, but only in relation to the occurrence of damage in that Member state (mosaic theory)
Shevill/Presse Aliance Sa:cross border libel. the courts of each of the member states in which the defamatory publication was distributed and in which the victim claims to have suffered injury to his reputation have jurisdiction to rule on the injury caused in that state to the victim's reputation.