Oberster Gerichtshof; 2020-12-07; 4 Ob 130/20a
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2020:0040OB00130.20A.0812.000
Date: 2020-08-12
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Austria

82020AT0812(53)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A private person domiciled in Austria (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed an action against the VW car manufacturer domiciled in Germany (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) due to the manipulated emissions software seeking to be refunded the purchase price against the concurrent return of the car which the plaintiff bought in Austria from an Austrian dealership.
According to the plaintiff, the seised court, the Landesgericht Krems (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 car had been purchased in Austria and taken over in the district of this court, this being therefore the place where the harmful event occurred.
The defendant challenged the international jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance claiming that the harm occurred in Germany as this was the place where the respective interests protected by law had initially been breached.
The Court of First Instance found itself lacking international jurisdiction and rejected the action citing that there were no circumstances given which could establish the jurisdiction under the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter ‘CJEU’).
The Oberlandesgericht Wien (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) upheld the appeal of the plaintiff. The faulty car had been handed over to the plaintiff in the district of the Court of First Instance and this district was therefore the place where the harmful event occurred.
The revision filed by the defendant with the Oberstes Gerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) was found admissible. The Supreme Court stayed the proceedings until the Court of Justice of the European Union had issued a preliminary ruling (2).
The Court of Justice of the European Union subsequently decided that in relation to emissions 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.
The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant’s revision. The revision proceedings between the plaintiff and defendant were resumed.
(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) Request for a preliminary ruling by Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Austria) submitted on 30 April 2019 – Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG, C-343/19.