Brandenburgisches Oberlandesgericht; 2018-12-04; 6 U 133/14
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGBB:2018:1204.6U133.14.00
Date: 2018-12-04
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82018DE1204(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case concerns the assignment of unjust enrichment claims arising from a lawyer's agreement concluded between lawyers having their principal place of business in Germany (hereinafter 'the defendants') and the assignor domiciled in Poland. Subsequently, the assignor contractually transferred the claims arising from unjust enrichment to which he was entitled to the plaintiff, who had his registered office in Poland.
The Landgericht Potsdam (hereinafter 'the Court of First Instance') tacitly accepted the international jurisdiction of the German courts having general jurisdiction over the defendant under Articles 1, 2 and 60 of the Brussels I Regulation (1) and stated that the transfer(s) had been made under Polish law. However, Article 14(2) of the Rome I Regulation (2) provides that the law applicable is the law to which the transferred debt is subject. Since the defendants had their principal place of business in Germany, the closest connection exists with German law, and therefore, under Article 32(1)(5)(i) in conjunction with Article 28(1) and (2) of the EGBGB, German law applies.
The assessment of the law applicable to the assigned claims from enrichment-related benefit entitlements shall be based on the provisions of Articles 27 et seq. EGBGB (3) and not the Rome II Regulation (4). The conclusion of allegedly ineffective reimbursement agreements took place before the entry into force of the Regulation and therefore, according to Article 31, the Rome II Regulation does not apply in case of a dispute.
in regard to the appeal by the defendants, the provisional judgment of the Court of First Instance delivered in the summary proceedings is set aside since the plaintiff in the appeal proceedings distanced himself from the summary proceedings. The defendants disputed the authenticity of the signature of the managing director acting on behalf of the assignor. The plaintiff submitted an original document drawn up before a notary public containing original signatures of the managing director. Using these settlement signatures, the Brandenburgische Oberlandesgericht (hereinafter 'the Court of Appeal') found that the signature on the contested document was identical to the signatures submitted.
The defendants are therefore ordered to pay to the plaintiff the sum specified in the judgment.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I).
(3) Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche (Introductory Act to the Civil Code).
(4) Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 June 2007 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I).