BGH; 2019-05-29; I ZR 194/18
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:BGH:2019:290519UIZR194.18.0
Date: 2019-05-29
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82019DE0529(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case dealt with by the Bundesgerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) concerned the application of international laws regarding international jurisdiction.
The plaintiff is the insurance company of the company Internationale Spedition s.r.o. (hereinafter ‘the policy holder’). The policy holder undertook to carry out transport from Milano to Salzgitter and commissioned with the transport, as a subcontractor, defendant 1 domiciled in Poland, whose insurance company for the liability for damage of goods was defendant 2 also domiciled in Poland. Upon the delivery of the goods made by a further Polish transport company commissioned by defendant 1, it was found out that the goods were partially damaged. The plaintiff subsequently settled the damage.
In this dispute, on the basis of the right assigned to the plaintiff by the policy holder, the plaintiff filed an action against both defendants as joint and severable debtors seeking the payment of compensation. Defendant 2 challenged the international jurisdiction of the court seised by the plaintiff, the Landgericht Braunschweig (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’). The Court of First Instance stated in its interim judgment that the action was admissible and the court seised held international, subject-matter and local jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the defendant against this judgment was not successful. Defendant 2 subsequently filed a revision, admitted by the Court of Appeal, seeking that the respective action against defendant 2 is to be dismissed as inadmissible. The plaintiff requested that the revision filed by defendant 2 be rejected.
The Oberlandesgericht Braunschweig (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) concluded that the international jurisdiction of the German courts was given not under Article 13(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) but under Article 31(1)(1)(b) of CMR (2). It further expressed the opinion that the provision of the CMR regarding international jurisdiction superseded the provisions of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) as lex specialis.
However, according to the case-law of the Supreme Court, the scope of applicability of Article 31(1)(1)(b) CMR is limited solely to those claims which have sufficiently close connection to the relevant contract of carriage. This precondition is undoubtedly met in respect of claims of or against persons directly involved with the transport. According to these principles, the place of jurisdiction under Article 31(1)(1)(b) of CMR also applies to the direct claim pursued by the plaintiff on the basis of the right assigned to it by the policy holder, who originally paid the compensation to the consignor, against defendant 2 as the provider of liability insurance for defendant 1.
The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the revision of defendant 2.
(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.
(2) Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR).