Facts
The dispute opposes German investors (the defendants) to a Swiss lawyer (the plaintiff) and a Swiss insurance company (defendant 1). The defendants claim damages for their losses resulting from investments in an American company, YBI. They believe that the plaintiff, as a lawyer and notary, breached his duties of loyalty and diligence by not warning them of the risks associated with this investment. Defendant 1 is being sued for failing to take necessary precautions when concluding the insurance policy with the plaintiff.
The plaintiff raised an objection of lack of jurisdiction, alleging that the Zurich court was not competent to hear the case. The court rejected this objection, considering that jurisdiction was established under Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Lugano Convention, which allows the joinder of several connected cases.
Considerations
The Court examined the issue of jurisdiction in cases of connectedness and lis pendens. It considered that Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Lugano Convention allows the joinder of several connected cases, but that this provision must be interpreted restrictively to avoid procedural abuses.
The Court also examined the issue of jurisdiction in cases of lis pendens, i.e., when two or more cases are pending between the same parties and concern the same subject matter. It considered that, in this case, jurisdiction must be determined based on the first case introduced.
The Court ultimately considered that the jurisdiction of the Zurich court was not established, as the defendants had not demonstrated that the cases were sufficiently connected to justify joinder. It therefore annulled the court's decision and referred the case for further instruction.
The Court…