OLG Frankfurt; 2016-06-08; 4 U 162/15
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGHE:2016:0608.4U162.15.0A
Date: 2016-06-08
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Lugano Convention
Origin: Germany

82016DE0608(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A lawyer and owner of a company domiciled in Munich (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed an action against a former client with a current domicile in Switzerland (hereinafter ‘defendant 1’), the bankruptcy administrator of defendant 1 who lived at that time in Germany (hereinafter ‘defendant 2’) and four operating businesses (restaurants) belonging to defendant 1 (hereinafter ‘defendants 3 to 6’) seeking that the courts declare that a claim regarding the payment of a legal fee in the amount of EUR 480,000 was to be registered as a claim within insolvency proceedings against defendants 2 to 6.
The legal basis was an agreement regarding legal services concluded between the plaintiff and defendant 1 relating to the termination of franchise agreements between a company and defendant 1. According to the plaintiff, he and defendant 1 agreed that defendant 1 and defendants 3 to 6 would be liable for the fee jointly and severally.
The plaintiff demanded the payment also from another private person living in Switzerland (hereinafter ‘defendant 7’) claiming that defendant 7 was liable for the obligations of defendant 1 on the basis of a written assumption of the debt as a co-debtor.
Defendants 1 and 7 contested the international and local jurisdiction of the Landgericht Frankfurt (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’). The Court of First Instance confirmed by an interim judgment that it was the competent court also in relation to defendants 1 and 7 citing that the international jurisdiction followed from Article 5 of the new Lugano Convention (1), i.e. from the place of performance. As could be seen in the Times Sheets of the plaintiff, a substantial part of the plaintiff’s activities after the conclusion of the legal services agreement had been carried out in Frankfurt.
The respective admissible appeals filed by defendants 1 and 7 with the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) were not successful.
The Court of Appeal expressed the opinion that an action against a bankruptcy administrator seeking that a claim is registered as claim within insolvency proceedings was to be classified as a civil and commercial matter within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the new Lugano Convention. International and local jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance in relation to actions against defendant 1 and 7 resulted from Article 6(1) of the new Lugano Convention. Even though the defendants were domiciled in Switzerland, the actions against the rest of the defendants were so closely connected that it was expedient to hear and determine them together. To the claims to be closely connected it was not necessary for them to be completely identical as to the merits, in particular with regard to defendant 7 who was sued for a different reason. It was sufficient that there was an overlap of substantial aspects, as was the case in this dispute.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of defendant 1 and 7 against the interim judgment of the Court of First Instance.
(1) Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.