Landesgericht Feldkirch, Urteil vom 08/06/2004 1 R 175/04i
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:LG00929:2004:RFE0000075
Date: 2004-06-08
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968
Origin: Austria

82004AT0608(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff claimed joint and several payment of €8_689.22 from the first defendant and the second defendant, a company having its seat in Germany. She alleged that the defendants owed the claimed sum to a third person under a guarantee, and that person had assigned her rights to the plaintiff. The court dismissed the claim against the first defendant, as insolvency proceedings had been initiated against it. The second defendant challenged the court’s jurisdiction. It asserted that a joinder under Article 6(1) Brussels I Regulation was out of question since the claim against the first defendant had been dismissed. The special jurisdiction of that Article had been invoked solely with the object of removing it from the jurisdiction of the court of its domicile. The court of first instance dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiff appealed.
The Landesgericht of Feldkirch (AT) holds that the plaintiff's appeal is justified. According to Article 6(1) Brussels I Regulation, a plaintiff can join a party in a court of a Contracting State in which one of the defendants is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and decide them together. In order to determine jurisdiction, it is enough that the arguments supporting the claim are conclusive as far as they refer to that required connection. By presenting the guarantee, the plaintiff has made a good case that the claims are connected. Also, the dismissal of the claim against the first defendant due to its insolvency does not impede the application of Article 6(1) Brussels Convention in relation to the second defendant. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s claim was not made in bad faith, since the alleged claim is not one which is clearly unfounded and since there is no lack of connection between the claims. Hence, the court of first instance has international jurisdiction.