LG Frankenthal; 2020-07-10; 9 O 55/19
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LGFRAPF:2020:0710.9O55.19.00
Date: 2020-07-10
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82020DE0710(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A private person domiciled in Frankenthal (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed an action against a company domiciled in the United Kingdom (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The plaintiff terminated its participation with the defendant and demanded to be refunded the amount he had paid for the profit participation rights.
The plaintiff acquired profit participation rights with the A Investments AG domiciled in Vienna for EUR 10,000. Its legal successor, the A Investments GmbH, was domiciled in Austria too. The legal successor of A Investments GmbH was the defendant. The plaintiff terminated its investment by sending the defendant a notice of termination.
The defendant demanded the action be dismissed due to a lack of international jurisdiction on the part of the German courts. The defendant further claimed that it was true that the plaintiff terminated its participation as of the end of 2018, but he was not entitled to any settlement due to the fact that the respective agreement provided for sharing the loss and, adequately, the amount of the refund equalled to EUR 0.
The Landgericht Frankenthal (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) held both local and international jurisdiction under Article 17(1)(c) and Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). The dispute was found to be a consumer matter under Article 17(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). Contrary to the opinion of the defendant, a consumer does not become a professional upon concluding a business agreement regarding the management of their own capital assets.
The defendant was also wrong regarding the alleged ineffectiveness of the service of the action. The service of the action was carried out in July 2019 pursuant to Article 14 of the Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 (2) by means of a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt.
Even if the initial lack of service could have been presumed, this defect would have been rectified under Article 189 of the ZPO (3) upon the receipt of the action by the representatives of the defendant.
The Court of First Instance ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff EUR 10,000 including interest.
(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.
(2) Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000.
(3) Zivilprozessordnung (Code of Civil Procedure).