Oberster Gerichtshof, Urteil vom 30/06/2003 7 Ob 89/03v
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2003:RS0117841
Date: 2003-06-30
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968
Origin: Austria

82003AT0630(10)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff performed renovations on a house in Austria which belonged to the defendant, domiciled in London (UK). The plaintiff sought outstanding payments for this work before an Austrian court. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of that court by reference to his domicile abroad. While the court of first instance held that it had jurisdiction, the appellate dismissed jurisdiction on the ground that the place of performance was at the domicile of the debtor.
The OGH (AT) firstly refers to Article 66 (1) Brussels I Regulation, which is a transitional provision expressly stating that the Regulation does not have retroactive effect. Thus, the Brussels Convention has to be applied to the action which was brought before the entry into force of the Brussels I Regulation, even though the Brussels I Regulation entered into force during the proceedings. Thus, according to Article 5(1) Brussels Convention, the place of performance only refers to the obligation in question and is to be determined according to the law applicable pursuant to the conflict of law rules of the forum. According to Article 4(2) of the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, the Austrian law effective at the seat of the plaintiff contractor is to be applied. Austrian law stipulates that the obligation to pay constitutes a sending obligation which has to be performed at the seat of the defendant debtor in London. Thus, the OGH (AT) declines international jurisdiction.