LG Saarbrücken; 2014-01-17; 5 S 68/12
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LGSAARB:2014:0117.5S68.12.0A
Date: 2014-01-17
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82014DE0117(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A private individual residing in Germany (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) asserted warranty claims against a French car dealer (hereinafter ‘the defendant’).
The plaintiff did not learn about the possibility of purchasing a vehicle from the defendant via the defendant’s website, but upon the recommendation of a friend. He subsequently concluded a written sales contract with the defendant for a used motor vehicle. The car proved to be defective after only a few days.
The Amtsgericht Saarbrücken (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) dismissed the action on the ground that the defendant did not direct his activities abroad, as provided for in Article 15(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation (1).
The plaintiff’s appeal to the Landgericht Saarbrücken (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) was successful.
Upon being asked for a preliminary ruling, the Court of Justice of the European Union replied that Article 15(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the means used to direct the professional or commercial activity to the Member State of residence of the consumer, namely an internet website, need not be causal for the conclusion of the contract with that consumer. However, if such causality is present, this is an indication that the contract is linked to such an activity.
The sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant constitutes a consumer contract because the defendant also directs his commercial activities towards Germany. Although the text on the defendant’s website is in French only, the activity is referred to as ‘import’ and ‘export’. The international character of the defendant’s activities is also evident from the indication of the telephone number having an international area code and, above all, a German mobile telephone number. The defendant is based in the border region with Germany and also aims to appeal to German customers.
The international jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance is given, even though neither the defendant’s website was causal for the conclusion of the contract with the plaintiff as a consumer, nor was the contract concluded at a distance.
The Court of Appeal set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance for a new decision.
(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.