OLG Frankfurt; 2023-02-08; 7 U 66/21
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGHE:2023:0208.7U66.21.00
Date: 2023-02-08
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82023DE0208(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
An individual currently residing in Switzerland (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) asserted claims for the reversal against an insurer based in the United Kingdom (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) following an objection to the conclusion of a life insurance contract.
The defendant objected to international and local jurisdiction.
The Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) dismissed the action as inadmissible. International jurisdiction does not arise from Article 11(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), since the plaintiff is not domiciled in Frankfurt am Main, but in Switzerland. It cannot be inferred from the wording of the policy conditions that the plaintiff's place of residence at the time the contract was concluded (Frankfurt am Main) should be decisive.
The plaintiff pursued his claim further by appealing to the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’). It was undoubtedly more favourable and advantageous for him to be able to proceed in a German court under German law, represented by a German law firm.
The plaintiff's appeal is admissible but unsuccessful on its merits.
The Court of First Instance rightly dismissed the action due to a lack of international jurisdiction. According to the policy conditions, the court in whose district the policyholder is domiciled or established has jurisdiction. The clause does not expressly state whether the determination of domicile is based on the time of the conclusion of the contract, in accordance with the plaintiff's opinion, or on the time the action is brought, in accordance with the defendant's opinion. This provision is an implementing regulation in the sense of an agreement on jurisdiction and is generally permissible under Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). Its interpretation is based on the principles of conflict of laws, whereby the parties chose German law so this provision must be interpreted in accordance with German principles of interpretation.
The clause is based on the place of residence that the policyholder ‘has establishment’, or where he is ‘established’, and thus refers to a present condition due to the wording in the present tense. The reference to the current place of residence avoids uncertainties regarding the competent court. Particularly in the case of long-term contracts such as life and pension insurance policies, the current place of residence can usually be clarified quickly and easily, unlike when the contract was concluded.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against the judgement of the Court of First Instance.
(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 (recast).