OLG Stuttgart; 2023-01-24; 5 U 174/22
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGSTUT:2023:0124.5U174.22.00
Date: 2023-01-24
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82023DE0124(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The dispute with the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) concerned international jurisdiction for claims arising from a master agreement regarding the development and delivery of a product.
The parties to the dispute were a defendant domiciled in France and a plaintiff domiciled in Germany. The plaintiff developed and manufactured, among other things, regulators and controllers for electric components. After the defendant terminated the master agreement, the plaintiff filed an action seeking the payment of remuneration.
The Court of First Instance found that the master agreement had been concluded as an agreement regarding ‘the sale of goods’ under Article 7(1)(b)(first hyphen) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) with a ‘place of delivery’ at the seat of the defendant in France, and denied, therefore, its own international jurisdiction to hear the case. The plaintiff applied for the decision of the Court of First Instance to be changed and the defendant be ordered to pay the claimed remuneration.
The Court of Appeal stated that the decisive factor for the classification of an agreement under Article 7(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) is the obligation typical for such an agreement.
In order to assess which of both project stages (development and delivery) agreed in the master agreement was the typical obligation for the agreement, it was necessary to examine which aspect was prevailing, the development service or the delivery of products. The fact that the defendant did not provide the plaintiff with any materials for producing the goods was a clear indicator that the agreement was to be classified as an agreement regarding the sale of goods (2).
If the delivery obligation represents a substantial obligation, the term ’agreement regarding the sale of goods’ also includes agreements regarding products which have to be produced yet. In such cases, the place of performance corresponds to the place of delivery or place of destination, i.e. the place where the goods were physically handed over or were planned to be physically handed to the buyer. In this dispute, the final place of destination was located in France. The Court of First Instance was correct to have found its own lack of international jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff against the decision 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).
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 25 February 2010, Car Trim GmbH, C-381/08, ECLI:EU:C:2010:90, paragraph 43.