Bundesgerichtshof; 2020-10-13; VI ZR 63/19
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:BGH:2020:131020BVIZR63.19.0
Date: 2020-10-13
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82020DE1013(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case concerned the question of the place of jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict if the action regarded compensation due to deceit.
The plaintiff (hereinafter the ‘plaintiff’) filed an action against a private limited liability company established under the laws of Bulgaria domiciled in Sophia (hereinafter the ‘defendant’) demanding compensation for a car it bought through an online advertisement.
The plaintiff sent the purchase price to the defendant first. Subsequently, the managing director of the plaintiff travelled to Sophia to collect the car. The purchase agreement concluded in Sophia included the information that the car had been involved in a serious accident and later repaired. It further said that the vehicle had a number of technical defects which were known to the plaintiff. The defendant, however, claimed not to have known the content of the purchase agreements. The plaintiff sold the car further and demanded compensation from the defendant.
The Landgericht Hannover (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) found itself to hold the international jurisdiction and ordered the defendant to pay the compensation. Based on the appeal of the defendant lodged with the Oberlandesgericht Celle (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), the action was rejected as inadmissible. In addition, the subsequent appeal was rejected as well.
According to the Court of Appeal, the Court of First Instance lacked international jurisdiction. When making its claim, the plaintiff invoked solely a delict, claiming that it was deceived by the advertisement in Germany. The loss was founded on the fact that the real condition of the car deviated from its contractually agreed and required condition. The claim for compensation could therefore not be assessed and decided independently of the obligations of the defendant under the purchase agreement. If the damage, however, was connected to the underlying agreement, the jurisdiction should not be determined under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) but Article 7(1) instead.
The Bundesgerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’), however, expressed doubts about whether the jurisdiction of German courts could be denied. The plaintiff was not relying directly on an obligation from a concluded contract but an alleged delict prior to the conclusion of the contract. If the action was not based on a contract or contractual obligations, the competent courts holding the international jurisdiction would be German courts under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
The Supreme Court stated that the success of the submitted revision depended on the interpretation of the law of the European Union and stayed the proceedings. The Supreme Court approached the Court of Justice of the European Union pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union submitting the question of whether Article 7(1)(a) and 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) was to be interpreted in such a way that the place of jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict was applicable in cases if the plaintiff had been motivated to conclude the purchase agreement and pay the purchase price by deceit.
(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.