OLG Düsseldorf; 2017-07-21; I-16 U 85/16
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGD:2017:0721.I16U85.16.00
Date: 2017-07-21
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82017DE0721(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
Five different plaintiffs (hereinafter ‘the plaintiffs’) brought an action seeking payment from the State of Greece (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) with respect to maturing government bonds at the nominal value of their original bonds plus interest.
As a result of the financial crisis in Greece, the Greek government decided to carry out a compulsory exchange of government bonds. The creditors were to waive 53.5% of the nominal value of their existing government bonds. A lower interest rate of 31.5% was offered. The interest rate on the remaining 15% was made dependent on the development of the Greek gross domestic product.
The plaintiffs assert their damage claim for specific performance or, alternatively, damages for Intentional damage contrary to public policy.
The Landgericht Wuppertal (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) has jurisdiction as a consumer court under Article 15(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation (1) and as the court of the place of performance under Article 5(1) of the Brussels I Regulation.
The defendant objected to the inadmissibility of the action on grounds of State immunity.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the plaintiff’s application as inadmissible. The dispute is not subject to German jurisdiction as the defendant enjoys state immunity and expressly invokes it.
The plaintiff’s appeal to the Higher District Court (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) was unsuccessful.
The principle of state immunity must be examined ex officio. State immunity applies without restriction to acts which constitute sovereign acts of a state. Sovereign acts of a state constitute state acts under public law in the exercise of its sovereign powers.
Debt restructuring is a sovereign act protected by state immunity. The contractual relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant does not change this. Although the exercise of sovereign authority has an influence on the loan agreements and related claims, the defendant is not a contractual partner of the plaintiffs under private law.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant’s appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
(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.