Bundesgerichtshof ; 2019-07-25; Versicherungsunternehmen; Transportunternehmen; I ZB 82/18
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:BGH:2019:250719BIZB82.18.0
Date: 2019-07-25
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82019DE0725(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case dealt with by the Bundesgerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) concerned a stay of proceedings where actions had been filed with the courts of different Member States with the later action concerning ‘the same cause of action’. The parties to the dispute were a transport company domiciled in Germany (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) and a Dutch insurance company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’).
A company domiciled in the Netherlands (hereinafter ‘the insured’) commissioned the defendant to transport products of the manufacturer A. from D. in the Netherlands to Frankfurt am Main in Germany. During the journey, part of goods went missing. Subsequently, the plaintiff provided compensation to the insured. The plaintiff held the defendant liable for the loss citing that it failed to meet the contractually agreed safety precautions.
On 28 July 2017, the plaintiff filed an action with the Landgericht Kleve (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) seeking the payment of compensation. However, the defendant stated to have filed an earlier action on 20 July 2017 with the Rechtbank Gelderland in the Netherlands seeking the issuance of a negative declaratory judgment declaring that the defendant was not liable beyond the compensation duty under Article 23(3) CMR (1) and was further not obliged to reimburse the expenses.
Having regard to the proceedings conducted in the Netherlands, the Court of First Instance decided to stay the proceedings. The plaintiff filed an immediate appeal against this decision which remained without success. The plaintiff pursued its claim further by filing a revision with the Supreme Court.
The CMR stipulates no specific preconditions for staying proceedings when the dispute is pending with a different court. Under the respective Article 29(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2), proceedings may be stayed if the proceedings conducted by the court first seised have not been concluded, and therefore, the question of the later enforceability of the respective decision has not been established yet.
According to Article 31(2) CMR, if proceedings are pendent with a competent court, a new action concerning the same cause of action may not be filed by the same parties. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, the ‘the same cause of action’ is also given in cases where the first initiated proceedings concern a negative declaratory judgment and the new proceedings an action for performance, where the proceedings are pendent with the courts of different Member States.
The Supreme Court annulled the resolution of the Court of First Instance and referred the case back for a new decision to the Court of First Instance.
(1) Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road.
(2) 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.