OGH; 2022-04-22; 4 Ob 36/22f
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2022:0040OB00036.22F.0422.000
Date: 2022-04-22
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Austria

82022AT0422(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A private person domiciled in Austria (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed an action against a person from Hungary (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) demanding the payment of EUR 61 000, the issuance of an invoice and a truck body certificate.
Through an Austrian intermediary, the defendant was assigned to plan, design, monitor, obtain the approval and type approval and to carry out the conversion of the plaintiff’s truck into a horse transporter.
Both the Court of First Instance seised under Article 17(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) and the Court of Appeal and the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck as the appellate court (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) denied the existence of a jurisdiction over consumer contracts and cited a lack of international jurisdiction on the part of the Court of First Instance. The defendant did not aim its activities to Austria. It did not operate any website, and had no agency agreement with the Austrian person.
The Supreme Court (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) found that the revision filed by the plaintiff did not raise any significant legal issue and dismissed it.
The Court of Appeal denied the alleged deficiency in the proceedings in the Court of First Instance. This circumstance could not be contested in the third instance. The appellate proceedings also did not contain any deficiencies. In his revision, the plaintiff focused on the inadequate evaluation of evidence in the pervious instances which, however, were not found to represent any significant legal issue.
(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).