Дело C-814/79: Нидерландия/Rüffer, Заключение от 8 октомври 1980 г.

a) Does the concept ‘civil and commercial matters’ referred to in Article 1 of the Convention include a claim such as that brought by the State against Rüffer?
b) Is a claim of the present kind within the concept of ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ referred to in Article 5 (3) of the Convention?
c) What is the effect of Article 5 (3) in a situation where the harmful event occurred in territory that is, according to the Ems-Dollard Treaty, regarded by the Kingdom of the Netherlands as belonging to the Netherlands and by the Federal Republic of Germany as belonging to the Federal Republic of Germany

Does Article 5 (3) mean that for the Dutch courts that place must be regarded as (also) being situated in the Netherlands

Having regard to the nature of the present claim is it in this respect relevant that the place lies in territory in which, pursuant to the Ems-Dollard Treaty, the Kingdom of the Netherlands is responsible for river-police functions and is therefore obliged to remove a wreck lying in the said territory?
d) Can ‘the place where harmful event occurred’ be the place where the damage as alleged by the State occurred, namely either The Hague, where the State has its seat of government, or Delfzijl (in the Arrondissement of Groningen) where the goods salvaged from the wreck were sold by the State revealing to what extent the costs incurred by the State in removing the wreck were not covered?
e) If the Ems-Dollard Treaty is to be understood as giving the Dutch courts jurisdiction over a claim such as the present one (which question is not referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling) does Article 57 of the Brussels Convention leave scope for the application of the opening words and paragraph 3 of Article 5 regarding jurisdiction?