LG Hamburg; 2016-11-10; 327 O 59/16
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LGHH:2016:1110.327O59.16.00
Date: 2016-11-10
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82016DE1110(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case dealt with by the Landgericht Hamburg (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) concerned the responsibility of a Danish attorney to pay an attorney fee upon commissioning services in a capacity as a body of legal entity.
The plaintiff was a German law and tax firm domiciled in Hamburg. Defendant 1 was a company domiciled in R, Denmark. Defendant 2 was an attorney-at-law registered to practise law in Denmark, who was the member of the supervisory board of the A. Danmark A/S jointly authorised to represent the company. After defendant 2 approached the plaintiff with an email, the plaintiff started in 2012 to provide out-of-court legal representation for A. Danmark A/S. In January 2014, insolvency proceedings were opened over A. Danmark A/S. In February 2014, the members of A. Danmark A/S decided to establish a new company within the restructuring process, the later defendant 1.
According to the plaintiff, defendant 2 promised defendant 1 would take over the claims regarding the payment of the fee to the plaintiff by A. Danmark A/S. The plaintiff further claimed that defendant 2 was responsible under point 5.7 of the CCBE-Code of Conduct for European Lawyers (1). The plaintiff demanded that both defendants pay the attorney fee.
The Court of First Instance held international jurisdiction with respect to both defendants under Article 7(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2) stipulating that a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question. An agreement regarding legal representation was an agreement for the provision of services. Therefore, the place of performance was the domicile of the plaintiff in Hamburg.
That defendant 1 intended to take over all older claims against A. Danmark A/S followed from an email of defendant 2 from 2 December 2014. The plaintiff had a rightful claim against defendant 1 to be paid an attorney fee under Article 611 BGB (3).
However, the plaintiff did not have any claim with respect to defendant 2. Defendant 2 bore no liability for claims which the plaintiff had against  A. Danmark A/S. Defendant 2 had not approached the plaintiff in his capacity as an attorney entrusting the plaintiff with a particular matter as a correspondent under point 5.7 of the CCBE-Code of Conduct for European Lawyers. The responsibility for fee under point 5.7 of the CCBE-Code of Conduct for European Lawyers was not established solely by the fact that a person who happens to be a lawyer commissioned a foreign lawyer in his capacity as a member of governing body of a legal entity.
The Court of First Instance ordered defendant 1 to pay the respective fee to plaintiff and dismissed the action as for the rest.
(1) Code of Conduct for European Lawyers.
(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.
(3) Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (the Civil Code).