OLG Stuttgart; 2015-08-17; 5 U 12/15
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGSTUT:2015:0817.5U12.15.0A
Date: 2015-08-17
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82015DE0817(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A private person living in Germany (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought an action against the legal successor of a telephone and address book publishers (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) seeking the payment of a pension allowance (Treuegeld) on the basis of a pension allowance agreement (Versorgungsvereinbarung).
Despite leaving the publishing houses prior to reaching the retirement age, the plaintiff, who used to work for the publishers as a sales agent, claimed to be entitled to receive the pension allowance under Article 4 of the statutes of the Agents Assistance Fund (Vertreterhilfskasse) stating that with regard to the place of performance, the Landgericht Stuttgart (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) held international jurisdiction under Article 5(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (1).
The defendant contested the international jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance citing that the action was inconclusive as any possible claim for payment should be directed against the Agents Assistance Fund (Vertreterhilfskasse) and the defendant.
The Court of First Instance upheld the action to its full extent. According to its opinion, its international jurisdiction was firmly established after the defendant waived the possibility to appeal against the partial judgment regarding information about the contributions made by the publishing houses in 2000. The applicability of the Brussels I Regulation had not been excluded by Article 1(2)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation (social security).
The admissible appeal lodged with the defendant with the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) was not successful.
The sales representative agreement represented an agreement regarding the provision of services under Article 5(1)(b) second indent of the Brussels I Regulation. Notwithstanding the arbitration clause provided for by Article 16 of the sale representative agreement, the courts having international jurisdiction were the German courts.
The application of the Brussels I Regulation was in particular not excluded by Article 1(2)(c) stipulating that this Regulation did not apply to matters of social security. The term ‘social security’ was to be interpreted autonomously and was covered by Article 3 of the Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (sickness, maternity, invalidity, old-age, survivors' benefits, benefits in respect of accidents at work and occupational diseases; death grants, unemployment benefits and family benefits).
Contrary to the opinion of the defendant, social security did not include any entitlements arising from a company pension scheme.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the defendant against the final decision of the Court of First Instance.
(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) Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems.