Oberster Gerichtshof; 2021-02-25; 3 Ob 205/20y
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2021:0030OB00205.20Y.0225.000
Date: 2021-02-25
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Austria

82021AT0225(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
An Austrian citizen (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed an action against his grandson living in Germany as a third-party debtor (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) demanding to be paid an amount exceeding EUR 1 million.
The plaintiff had granted his son, the father of the defendant (hereinafter ‘the obligor’), a loan which the obligor had not paid back within the stipulated time. Prior to the action against the defendant, the plaintiff had filed an action against the obligor demanding the payment of the respective amount. Within the latter proceedings, a default judgment was issued against the obligor, based on which the relevant court allowed the plaintiff to enforce his action against the obligor. The relevant court enforced a claim the obligor had against the defendant as a third party, legally defined as ‘claim resulting from asset management’.
According to the plaintiff, the agricultural land, whose economic owner was the obligor and whose registered owner was the defendant, had been meant as a liability fund for the action against the obligor. The defendant, however, failed to provide the plaintiff with compensation and was about to sell this land.
The defendant contested the international jurisdiction of the Landesgericht Leoben (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’).
The Court of First Instance rejected the action, citing a lack of international jurisdiction due to the fact that the filed action did not show any connection between the loan granted to the obligor and the actions of the defendant.
The Oberlandesgericht Graz (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) did not uphold the appeal of the plaintiff, stating that his argumentation was difficult to understand and inconsistent.
The revision filed by the plaintiff with the Oberstes Gerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) was found inadmissible due to a lack of substantial legal subject matter.
Article 24(5) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) stipulates that with regard to proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the Member State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced shall have exclusive jurisdiction. In one of its previous rulings (2), the Supreme Court found that such jurisdiction is not given in cases regarding actions against third-party debtors.
The Supreme Court dismissed the revision of the plaintiff.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) ECLI:AT:OGH0002:1998:0070ND00514.97.0202.000 und ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2002:0070OB00139.02W.0807.000.