Oberster Gerichtshof, Urteil vom 03/04/2003 6 Nc 10/03b
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2003:0060NC00010.03B.0403.000
Date: 2003-04-03
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968
Origin: Austria

82003AT0403(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff domiciled in Austria raised a claim for payment before an Austrian court against the defendant, a mail-order company with its seat in Germany. In her argument, she explained that she had received correspondence from the defendant, addressed to her personally, which contained a promise of a prize notification. After sending back the prize certificate along with a trial order, the prize was not paid. The plaintiff petitioned to refer the case to the OGH (AT) for a determination of the territorial jurisdiction.
The OGH (AT) rejects the application for determination of territorial jurisdiction as unfounded, as national jurisdiction in Austria is provided for. On the basis of the ECJ’s jurisprudence on Article 13(1)(3) Brussels Convention (C-96/00, Rudolf Gabriel), the content of which corresponds to Article 15(1)(c) Brussels I Regulation, the action is to be classified as contractual. On the basis of the correspondence addressed to her personally, the plaintiff demands as a consumer before the courts of her domicile, according to the law of that State, that the mail order company, having its seat in another Contracting State, pay out the prize. The prize notification gave the impression that the plaintiff would receive a prize if she ordered goods for a certain amount of money. The plaintiff did indeed make such an order but did not receive the prize. The scope of consumer contracts should be interpreted autonomously. According to the indications of the plaintiff, it is to be presumed that the necessary private purpose existed. Therefore, a consumer contract under Article 15 exists. According to Article 16(1), the plaintiff, as a consumer, can bring the action before the court in the State where she is domiciled. As Article 16(1), referring to “the courts for the place where the consumer is domiciled”, also regulates local jurisdiction, a determination of the territorial jurisdiction is no longer necessary.