LG Bonn; 2018-10-14; 1 O 101/18
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LGBN:2018:1214.1O101.18.00
Date: 2018-12-14
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82018DE1214(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case dealt with by the Landgericht Bonn (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) concerned the revocation of a carpet purchase made in Turkey, the applicable law and the effectiveness of the revocation.
In 2016, the plaintiff and his wife booked a 15-day package holiday in Turkey with the German travel agency V GmbH. On the sixth day of the journey, 28 February 2016, the bus took the plaintiff to a carpet weaving centre of the defendant. In this centre, the parties to the dispute concluded a written purchase agreement regarding two carpets for the total price of EUR 15,000. The contract form also included a German version. Upon the execution of the contract, the plaintiff made a down payment of EUR 5,000. The carpets were to be delivered to the plaintiff after his return home and the balance paid upon the delivery.
With a letter sent by the procedural representative of the plaintiff from 10 March 2016, the plaintiff withdrew from the purchase agreement. According to the plaintiff, the purchase agreement was subject to German law. The plaintiff applied that the defendant be ordered to pay back the down payment of EUR 5,000. The defendant argued that the purchase agreement had been made under the Turkish Code of Obligations and the action was therefore to be dismissed.
The international jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance followed from Article 18(2) an Article 17(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). If the parties had not agreed on the place of jurisdiction, the applicable law concerning a withdrawal from a purchase contract made in Turkey was  German law under Article 6(1)(b) of the Rome I Regulation (2). The plaintiff was entitled to receive the down payment of EUR 5,000 back from the defendant under Article 357(1) and Article 355(3) of the BGB (3).
The purchase agreement of 28 February 2016 had been concluded during a trip co-organised by the defendant as a professional business entity with the aim to offer carpets for sale to the plaintiff as a consumer. The Court of First Instance expressed the opinion that unless the parties had agreed on a concrete place of jurisdiction, the Article 6(2)(2) of the Rome I Regulation prohibits any deviations to the disadvantage of the consumer from the level of consumer protection applicable under 6(2)(1) of the Rome I Regulation.
The Court of First Instance ordered the defendant to pay EUR 5,000 back to 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) Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I).
(3) Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (the German Civil Code).