LG Dortmund; 2018-05-30; 8 O 10/18 Kart
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LGDO:2018:0530.8O10.18KART.00
Date: 2018-05-30
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82018DE0530(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A manufacturer of rear seat backs (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed an application seeking the issuance of a preliminary ruling against three car makers (hereinafter ‘the defendants’) belonging to the same group of companies.
The plaintiff, who had been delivering its products to the defendants for years, developed, upon their commission, rear seat backs constructed as identical modules suitable for as many car models of the defendants as possible in order to reduce the costs and weight.
The deliveries, carried out towards two defendants on the basis of a Nomination Letter and towards the third defendant on the basis of general business terms and conditions, were terminated by the defendant after almost ten years by the notice of termination with a notice period of 12 months.
The plaintiff sought the issuance of a preliminary ruling ordering the defendants, under the threat of a penalty or other sanctions, to continue buying its products under the current prices and conditions until the production of the respective car models have been stopped.
The third defendant contested the international jurisdiction of the German courts. All defendants stated that that subject-matter of the application for a preliminary ruling was in fact only a request for a declaratory judgment and the justified need for legal protection was not given.
The Landgericht Dortmund (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) dismissed the application of the plaintiff.
With respect to third defendant, the application was inadmissible. The jurisdiction of the German courts was not given due an existing agreement regarding the jurisdiction of courts. Contrary to the opinion of the plaintiff, Article 35 of the Brussels I Regulation (1) led to no other result.
With respect to the other two defendants, the application was admissible, but not justified, as there was no reason for a preliminary ruling (Verfügungsgrund) (Article 935 ZPO (2)). A preliminary order to perform may only be issued in strictly exceptional cases. The plaintiff had not demonstrably proved to be dependent on an immediate performance of its claim for performance and that if this was not the case, it would suffer substantial economic loss. The business relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant will continue during the notice period and within this period, no loss of rights or an economic loss is to be presumed.
The plaintiff can purse its claims by the means of a main action seeking the fulfilment of the whole agreement or seeking a declaratory judgement stipulating the invalidity of the notice of termination.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) Zivilprozessordnung (Code of Civil Procedure).