Landesgericht Feldkirch, Urteil vom 20/10/2003 3 R 259/03s
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:LG00929:2003:RFE0000072
Date: 2003-10-20
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968
Origin: Austria

82003AT1020(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The defendants searched the internet for addresses of medical institutes for artificial fertilization. The plaintiff’s company was an institute for in-vitro fertilization, which had an informative website. The treatment contract stipulated that the courts in Bregenz (AT) would have jurisdiction. The plaintiff brought an action in Austria against the defendants for a payment of 1022,52 Euros for the medical treatment. The defendants challenged the court’s jurisdiction on the ground that they were consumers and thus, according to Article 17 Brussels I Regulation, the jurisdiction clause was not applicable. The court of first instance dismissed the defendants’ objections. The defendants appealed the court’s decision.
The LG of Feldkirch (AT) holds that the recourse is well founded. Contrary to Article 13(1)(3) Brussels Convention, it is sufficient for the purpose of Article 15(1)(c) Brussels I Regulation, that the supplier merely directs his activities towards the State of the consumer’s domicile. On its website, which can be accessed world-wide, the plaintiff addressed couples with an unfulfilled desire to have children and provided contact methods. Thus, the plaintiff has directed its activities towards the territories of other Contracting States through its cross-border promotion. It is irrelevant whether the website was “active” or “passive”. Neither can the plaintiff invoke the exclusive jurisdiction clause according to Article 17 Brussels I Regulation. Consumers can only be sued in the State in which they are domiciled, and thus, generally the court of the place where they are domiciled has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction agreements are only permissible if they provide the consumer with a choice of additional jurisdictions. The treatment contract between the parties does not provide such a jurisdiction agreement. Thus, the court of first instance has neither international nor local jurisdiction.