KG Berlin; 2019-03-21; 22 U 209/16
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:KG:2019:0321.22U209.16.00
Date: 2019-03-21
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82019DE0321(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case concerns the applicant's appeal against the decision of the Landgericht Berlin (hereinafter 'the Court of First Instance') to the Kammergericht Berlin (hereinafter 'the Court of Appeal').
The decision of the Court of First Instance in this case related to the determination of the international jurisdiction of the German courts by means of an application by the defendant pursuant to Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation (1). The Court of First Instance considered that the defendant would not engage in the procedure pursuant to Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation if, during the preliminary written procedure, the defendant merely applied for the action to be dismissed, indicated his intention to defend himself and provided notice of his intention to defend himself within the prescribed term.
During the proceedings before the Court of Appeal, the plaintiff referred to a paper (2) which contests the point of law in question. However, this point of law had already been clarified (see, for example, judgment of the CJEU Case C-144/12 (3)). The first defence, which requires a substantive examination, is significant. The statement of defence, including the submission of a request for rejection, is therefore insufficient.
The Court of Appeal based its decision on the first sentence of § 522(2) of the ZPO, according to which ‘the court of appeal is to immediately deny leave to appeal in a decision if all of its members are unanimously satisfied that the appeal manifestly has no chance of success’ (4), and thus denied leave of the applicant's appeal and ordered for the applicant to bear the costs.
(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) Aladyev, „Rügelose Einlassung nach Artikel 26 EuGVVO durch die Verteidigungsanzeige”, IWRZ 2017, 207 ff.
(3) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 June 2013, Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v. Massimo Sperindeo, C-144/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:393.
(4) Zivilprozessordnung (Code of Civil Procedure).