Oberster Gerichtshof, Urteil vom 21/01/2009 3 Ob 261/08s
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2009:0030OB00261.08S.0121.000
Date: 2009-01-21
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Austria

82009AT0121(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff is the insolvency administrator of an Austrian company. He brought action against the defendant, domiciled in Italy, before the Landesgericht of Innsbruck to set aside the debtor company's transactions. The defendant entered a plea to contest the international jurisdiction, which was rejected. According to the court, the exemption in Article 1(2)(b) Brussels I Regulation applies, as actions to set aside debtor transactions do not fall under the jurisdiction rules of the Regulation because of their close relationship to the insolvency proceedings and their jurisprudential character as matters of insolvency. Even the European Insolvency Regulation 1346/2000 establishes procedure just for insolvency proceedings, not for matters incidental to insolvency. The gap between the two Regulations is intended to make space for the application of domestic national law. According to Austrian domestic national law, Austria has domestic national jurisdiction. The defendant filed a petition with the Oberlandesgericht of Innsbruck. This interrupted the proceedings, as the key questions necessary for a ruling were already before the ECJ, having been submitted by the court of another Member State. The courts had to wait for the decision of the ECJ so that it could have a common, consistent effect. The defendant appealed against the interruption of the proceedings to the OGH (AT).
The OGH dismisses the appeal. The question here is whether actions to set aside debtor transactions fall under Article 1(2)(b) Brussels I Regulation notwithstanding their close relationship with insolvency proceedings, and whether the jurisdiction of the Landesgericht of Innsbruck subsequently can be based on Austrian national law. Because the question posed by the BGH (DE) to the ECJ in Case C-339/07 is essentially identical, the interruption of the appellate proceedings by the Oberlandesgericht of Innsbruck was correct, as the court based its decision in sound reasoning.