OLG Braunschweig; 2020-06-10; 3 W 6/18
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGBS:2020:0610.3W6.18.00
Date: 2020-06-10
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82020DE0610(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
48 different investors from Germany and further 213 investors from outside of Germany (hereinafter the ‘plaintiffs’) filed an action against the VW holding company (hereinafter the ‘defendant’) seeking compensation in connection with their shares due to ad-hoc announcements relating to the VW emissions scandal which the plaintiffs alleged VW intentionally omitted, thus breaching its duties.
Having regard to the model case proceedings initiated by the Landgericht Braunschweig (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), the Court of First Instance stayed the proceedings for 213 plaintiffs under Article 8(1) KapMuG (1). In addition, it stayed the proceedings regarding 66 of the total 213 plaintiffs due to the model case proceedings initiated by the Landgericht Stuttgart. As for the remaining plaintiffs, the Court of First Instance postponed the decision regarding the stay of proceedings.
The defendant lodged an appeal with the Oberlandesgericht Braunschweig (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) contesting the stay of proceedings regarding the 28 plaintiffs domiciled in Germany and the 24 plaintiffs domiciled abroad due to the fact the Court of First Instance had not upheld the defendant’s previous immediate objection concerning those plaintiffs.
The appeal was found partially justified.
Regarding the German plaintiffs, the dispute was to be stayed only to the extent that the decision depended on the findings of the model case proceedings regarding the local jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. Whether any further stay should be declared was to be decided by the Court of First Instance after a new examination of the matter. Under Article 8(1) KapMuG, the right to sue was to be demonstrated or examined first.
Regarding the foreign plaintiffs, no stay of proceedings was possible due to the potential need to clarify the local jurisdiction. Local jurisdiction is also established by entering in appearance under Article 26(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2). Entering an appearance is to be interpreted autonomously and it means any act of legal defence seeking the dismissal of the action. In this case, it was the reply to the action made within the written pretrial proceedings.
Based on the appeal of the defendant, the Court of Appeal partially modified the decision of the Court of First Instance. Regarding the 28 plaintiffs domiciled in Germany, the stay of the proceedings was annulled to the extent of the disputed question of the local jurisdiction which was not subject-matter of the partial model case decision. Regarding the 24 foreign plaintiffs, the stay of the proceedings was annulled. The Court of Appeal referred the case back to the Court of First Instance for a new hearing.
(1) Kapitalanleger-Musterverfahrensgesetz. (Act on Model Case Proceedings in Disputes under Capital Markets Law).
(2) 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.