Oberster Gerichtshof, Urteil vom 28/07/2010 9 ObA 120/09a
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2010:009OBA00120.09A.0728.000
Date: 2010-07-28
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Austria

82010AT0728(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The two suing companies accuse 6 defendants in total of betrayal of company secrets, through which they claim to have suffered considerable damages. They brought an action in Austria for injunctive relief. Two of the defendants are domiciled in Germany. They are employed at a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Austrian first defendant. The OLG of Innsbruck (AT) held on appeal that the first defendant at the time at which the action was brought had a domicile in Innsbruck. The two German defendants challenged the international jurisdiction of the Austrian courts. The OLG of Innsbruck (AT) held it had international jurisdiction and granted the action. The two German defendants lodged an appeal on a point of law to the OGH (AT).
The OGH dismisses the appeal. It holds that the claimants were entitled to invoke jurisdiction over multiple defendants under Article 6(1) for their action against the two German defendants. First, it dismisses their objection that with regard to them the action is an action arising out of an individual contract of employment within the meaning of Articles 18 – 21 Brussels I Regulation with the consequence that Article 6(1) would be excluded. The sole fact that both defendants were employed by the wholly-owned subsidiary of the first defendant does not mean that an action arising out of an individual contract of employment is concerned. The claimants may therefore invoke the forum of Article 6(1) for their action based upon the accusation of tortious cooperation of the defendants to the disadvantage of the claimants. The action was brought at the domicile of one of the defendants, namely that of the first defendant. In this regard, it is without relevance that he also has a domicile in Russia. Within the context of Article 6(1), it suffices that one of the defendants has a secondary domicile within the district of the court.