Oberster Gerichtshof, Beschluß vom 04/03/2010 2Ob178/09d
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2010:0020OB00178.09D.0304.000
Date: 2010-03-04
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968
Origin: Austria

82010AT0304(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff pleaded for judgment against the defendant, who resides in Hungary, for the compensation in remuneration for hospitalization and medical services in the Landeskrankenhaus of Innsbruck (AT), which belongs to the plaintiff. The jurisdiction of the Austrian courts is based on Article 5(1)(a) Brussels I Regulation and a jurisdiction agreement.The defendant disputed the international jurisdiction of the court seised citing Article 15(1)(c) Brussels I Regulation, claiming that she is a consumer and the plaintiff directs its commercial or professional activities toward Hungary. The trial court dismissed the action for lack of recourse to the civil courts. In response to appeal filed by the plaintiff against this order, the appeals court lifted the challenged decision and ruled the previous proceedings, including the service of process, as void by law, and then dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. The claims for care fees that formed the grounds of the hospital's case against the patient are of a public law nature, the enforcement of which does not enjoy recourse to the civil courts. The plaintiff appealed the decision to the OGH (AT).
The OGH dismisses the appeal as unfounded. That Austrian law does not provide a remedy for this claim before civil courts does not mean that no European country provides a remedy. Specifically, the reach of civil litigation is wider in Hungary than in Austria. Should a consumer, due to the competence of administrative courts, again be denied access to the civil court pursuant to Article 15 et seq. Brussels I Regulation, the petitioner still would not be aggrieved.