我國民事訴訟法第十五條第一項規定，因侵權行為涉訟者，由侵權行為之行為地法院管轄。實務上解釋管轄連結因素，認為所謂侵權行為之「行為地」，凡為一部實行行為或其一部行為結果發生之地皆屬之。惟上開規定與解釋，係屬對國內民事訴訟之管轄規定和解釋，對於國際民事訴訟的管轄究應如何處理，不無問題。 關於國際民事訴訟的裁判管轄權問題，特別是關於財產法上的涉外民事訴訟，現行國際法上尚未確立明確的規範，除了區域性的布魯塞爾公約（1968年「關於民事及商事事件的裁判管轄暨判決之承認與執行公約」之外，亦無成熟之國際習慣法存在。因此，受訴法院就一涉外訴訟事件是否有國際裁判管轄權，在理論上必須任由各國國內法，亦即國際私法或國際民事訴訟法來加以規整。在先進諸國，針對此問題，多由各國之學說與判例來擔任造法的任務。 布魯塞爾公約的解釋，除了官方的報告書之外，最重要者，為歐洲法院解釋此公約所下超過百餘件的判例。同公約已在2001年成為歐盟理事會的立法：「關於管轄暨判決的承認與執行之2002年歐洲理事會規則」（本文簡稱惟EU管轄規則I），而其修法，更是以歐洲法院在判例中的見解為指針。 布魯塞爾公約乃至於EU管轄規則I之立法方式，係採大陸法系的立法方式，其原理原則與立法架構與我國現行民事管轄法規（民事訴訟法上關於土地管轄的規定）同質性極高。因此不論管轄原因的規定抑或是對管轄連結因素的解釋，對於建構我國自身的國際民事訴訟法上的規範極具參考性價值。 本文以布魯塞爾以公約乃至EU管轄規則I上關於侵權行為的國際裁判管轄規定為題，並調查歐洲法院相關的判例，從定性、管轄聯結因素的確定到個別管轄原因的解釋，在整理歸納歐洲法院的判例所確立之規則之後，檢討適用在我國國際裁判管轄理論上之可能性，以期對於建構我國相關法制的各論上之研究能有所助益。

　　　　　A Plaintiff may bring an action in tort in the court for the place where tort occurred (Code of Civil Procedure Article 15 Paragraph 1). The case-law in Taiwan defined that where the place of the happening of tortuous act or omission which may give rise to liability in tort, and the place where that event results in damage are not identical, the wording of 'for the place where tort occurred', is intended to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the act or omission giving rise to it. This interpretation states the general rule in matters of tort. As is usual in national legal systems and in international Conventions, the place where the wrongful act was committed is the one which has to be taken into account. Most of the national courts justified this wide interpretation in matter of jurisdiction in tort. Such interpretation reflects the modern tendency to give the injured party a choice between the forum of the place of the act, and that of the place where its effects are felt, and directly states these options in the text of the clause. It is also clear that this distinction only gives the plaintiff a choice if the tort has been committed "at a distance" and its injurious effects are experienced in a country other than the one in which the act or omission was found to have taken place. Nevertheless, in most cases, the connection 'the place where the injurious effects (or damage) occurred' will provide an alternative to the defendant's forum, and frequently coincides with the domicile of the plaintiff. Defining the place of injurious effect' is highly problematic when the direct effects of the act or omission and it indirect effects occur in different places. However, possible resolution could be found from the authoritative guidance established by the case-law of European Court of Justice. On 27 September 1968 the Member States of EC, acting under Article 293 of the Treaty, concluded the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by Convention on the Accession of the new member states to that convention (hereinafter referred to as the 'Brussels Convention'). The 1971 Protocol authorizes European court of Justice to give uniform ruling on the interpretation of the Brussels Convention. This article attempts to establish the theory of jurisdiction in matters of international tort cases in Taiwan. In Part I of this article, I will introduce the general rule in tort jurisdiction and describe the issues in some detail. Part II introduce the historical background of Brussels Convention and Brussels I Regulation 44/2001 on 1 March 2002. In Part III the judgments in matters of tort rendered by the European Court of Justice will be introduced and examined. I will argue the legal opinion in Shevill and try to give an alternative resolution for the similar type of cases in Taiwan. In stead of the opinion of Shevill, the possibility and the legal argument to apply the rule of jurisdiction-based-on-joint claim in Taiwan will be examined in part IV and V.