LG Karlsruhe; 2014-01-03; 14 O 94/13 KfH III
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LGKARLS:2014:0103.14O94.13KFHIII.0A
Date: 2014-01-03
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82014DE0103(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A company specialising in glass, established in Germany (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) sought, by an action for a negative declaratory judgment, a declaration that the Belgian liquidators (hereinafter ‘the defendants’) of a public limited company established in Belgium (hereinafter ‘the PLC’) were not entitled to payment claims arising from a transaction concluded before the opening of bankruptcy proceedings.
The PLC was obliged to supply the plaintiff with curved and flat multi-pane insulating glass which should have passed a special fire protection test. It was agreed that German law shall apply, excluding the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, and that the place of jurisdiction shall be the location of the plaintiff’s registered office. The PLC supplied a portion of the glass that had not been subjected to the fire protection test. At the same time, the PLC informed the plaintiff regarding the imminent insolvency and the fact that it was no longer able to meet its delivery obligations.
The plaintiff withdrew from the contract and offered the defendants to purchase the delivered glasses at a reduced price and then to retrofit the glasses themselves to successfully pass the fire test. No reaction was received from the defendants and they subsequently demanded payment from the plaintiff of the amount of the invoice in accordance with the contract with the PLC plus payment of the penalty clause and default interest.
The action is admissible and well founded.
The Landgericht Karlsruhe (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) has international jurisdiction pursuant to the first sentence of Article 1(1) in conjunction with Article 23(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (1). The plaintiff and the PLC concluded an effective jurisdiction agreement.
In accordance with Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (2), the plaintiff claim is not to be assessed within the framework of the insolvency proceedings. The international jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance is not based on Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000, as the defendants wrongfully claim. These individual proceedings concerning the claim for payment neither arise directly from the insolvency proceedings nor are they closely related to the insolvency proceedings.
This case concerns a defective delivery and the defendants are not entitled to compensation.
The Court of First Instance found that the defendants had no claims against the plaintiff.
(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) Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings.