Oberster Gerichtshof; 2020-08-12; 4 Ob 132/20w
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2020:0040OB00132.20W.0812.000
Date: 2020-08-12
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Austria

82020AT0812(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A private person domiciled in Austria (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed an action against the car manufacturer Peugeot, domiciled in France (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), seeking the payment of EUR 10,990 against the concurrent return of their car.
The plaintiff claimed that the purchased Peugeot 208 belonged to a production series with a defect causing a serious loss of oil after low mileage. According to the plaintiff, the seised court, the Bezirksgericht Leibnitz (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), held international jurisdiction under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) due to the fact that the harm occurred upon the purchase of the car from an Austrian dealership.
The defendant challenged the international jurisdiction, citing that competent courts were the courts according to the place of manufacture of the car. Therefore, the jurisdiction according to the place of performance or the jurisdiction for consumer matters were not applicable in this case.
The Court of First Instance rejected the objection of the lack of international jurisdiction. Under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), the place where the harmful event occurred is the place where the protected legal interests have been breached and the value of property reduced, which was Austria in this case.
The Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) upheld the appeal of the defendant and dismissed the action citing the lack of international jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.
The revision filed by the plaintiff with the Oberstes Gerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) was successful.
The Court of Justice of the European Union decided earlier (2) that in relation to emission manipulation, Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) was to be interpreted in the way that the place where the harmful event occurred was the place where the customer purchased the car. The respective harm materialised itself only upon the purchase of the car due to the fact that, having regard to the software manipulation, the customer paid a price in excess of the real value of the car.
These circumstances were given in this case. The plaintiff suffered the primary harm upon the purchase of the car from the dealership.
The Supreme court decided in favour of the plaintiff’s revision, changed the ruling of the Court of Appeal and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance for a new hearing.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 July 2020, Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG, C-343/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:534.