Oberster Gerichtshof, Urteil vom 03/05/2002 9 Nd 502/02
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2002:0090ND00502.02.0503.000
Date: 2002-05-03
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Austria

82002AT0503(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The applicants, who are domiciled in Austria, booked a package holiday to the Grand Canary (ES) with the respondent, which has its seat in Germany. The applicants made claims arising from issues with the holiday. They intended to bring an action against the respondent under the consumer jurisdiction of Article 16(1) Brussels I Regulation, and applied to the OGH (AT) for the determination of the territorially competent court by way of the so called process of ordination. As grounds for this application, they claimed that, in their opinion, Article 16 Brussels I Regulation only determines international jurisdiction, while the Austrian law of civil procedure does not provide for a territorially competent court.
The OGH dismisses the application. It states that the Brussels I Regulation has solved the problem raised by the applicants, which had existed under the Brussels Convention, in the wording of Article 16(1) Brussels I Regulation. Article 14(1) Brussels Convention merely determined the jurisdiction of the courts of the domicile State of the consumer; as national Austrian law did not provide for a forum at the domicile of the consumer, the territorially competent court had to be determined by the OGH in the process of ordination. In contrast to Article 14(1) Brussels Convention, the wording of Article 16(1) Brussels I Regulation refers to the courts for the place where the consumer is domiciled and, thus, determines not only international jurisdiction, but also territorial jurisdiction.
As the territorial jurisdiction arises directly from the Brussels I Regulation, the ordination of a court is not necessary, and the application is therefore to be dismissed.