Oberster Gerichtshof, Urteil vom 11/03/2010 4 Ob 173/09h
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2010:0040OB00173.09H.0311.000
Date: 2010-03-11
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Austria

82010AT0311(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The claimant bought a combine harvester from the Austrian first defendant. The German domiciled second defendant had produced a data sheet regarding the combine harvester, which was delivered with the machine. The plaintiff brought an action for damages against both defendants in the Bezirksgericht of Klosterneuburg (AT), which had jurisdiction over the domicile of the first defendant. He argued that the data sheet contained erroneous information regarding the required tire pressure, which resulted in damage to several of them. The second defendant challenged the international jurisdiction of the Austrian courts. While the first instance court granted the challenge of jurisdiction, the Landesgericht of Korneuburg (AT), as the appellate court, held that actions against both defendants were connected; thus, in connection with its action brought at the domicile of the first defendant, the claimant could invoke jurisdiction over multiple defendants under Article 6(1) Brussels I Regulation against the second defendant. The second defendant appealed on a point of law to the OGH (AT).
The OGH dismisses the appeal. In the first place, the tort forum of Article 5(3) Brussels I Regulation may be invoked for the action against the second defendant. In addition, with respect to the forum of Article 6(1), it has been established in the jurisprudence since the judgment of the ECJ 01.10.2007 – C-98/06 – Freeport that there may be a connection even if the connected actions are brought under differing legal bases. The judgment of the appellate court, which found a connection between the action against the first defendant brought under contract and the action against the second defendant brought under tort on the basis that both related to the alleged error in the data sheet, cannot be criticised. Therefore, it correctly held that the Austrian courts have international jurisdiction over the action.