Danish Eastern High Court rules that Danish courts have jurisdiction in actions against two French companies

The Danish consultancy firm had brought actions against two French companies, claiming that the French companies must recognise that the consultancy firm is not liable to pay damages to the French companies in connection with the consultancy firm's design of four telecommunications masts located in France.
On 24 March 2021 the Copenhagen City Court dismissed the actions on the grounds that Danish courts did not have jurisdiction. Following this, the consultancy firm brought the City Court's ruling before the Danish Eastern High Court.

The case concerns a claim for non-contractual damages. Against this background, the Danish Eastern High Court reviewed the special rules on jurisdiction in Article 7(2) of the EU Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters according to which proceedings concerning non-contractual damages may be brought before the court of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur (tort jurisdiction). Referring to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the High Court noted that this means that the action may be brought both at the place where the harmful effect occurred (the place of effect) and at the place where the event giving rise to the damage took place (the place of action).

The Danish Eastern High Court found that the consultancy firm's disputed design services were performed at the firm's head office based on specifications which the consultancy firm had received from the French companies through a third party. None of the persons working on the project went to France to inspect the sites where the towers were to be erected. Against this background, the Danish Eastern High Court found that that the place of the event potentially causing the damage is Denmark.

According to the Eastern High Court the fact that the consultancy firm subsequently carried out remedial measures with respect to the towers, including inspection of one of the towers in France, could not lead to a different result. Similarly, the Danish Eastern High Court held that the fact that the place of action or the place of effect for the potentially harmful event according to the negative declaratory action was also the consultancy firm's home court could not in itself lead to the consultancy firm not being able to choose between the place of action and the place of effect.
Against this background, the Danish Eastern High Court set aside the Copenhagen City Court's judgment and referred the case back to the City Court for the purpose of a judgment on the substance.
 
Plesner represented the Danish consultancy firm.

The case was conducted by Torben Bondrop and Andreas Rye-Andersen.