Oberlandesgericht Wien, Urteil vom 26/02/2007 13 R 24/07f
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OLG0009:2007:RW0000388
Date: 2007-02-26
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Austria

82007AT0226(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff is an Austrian attorney having his law firm in Vienna (AT). He represented the defendant, who at that time was domiciled in Austria, in various proceedings. The defendant moved his domicile to the Czech Republic. As he failed to pay the attorney's fees, the plaintiff commenced proceedings before the Austrian court at the seat of his law firm. He based the jurisdiction of that court on the ground that together with the power of attorney, the defendant had also stipulated a jurisdiction agreement in favour of the Landesgericht of Vienna. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the Austrian courts. He asserted that he was a consumer and that the plaintiff had represented him in proceedings for maintenance. As the challenge was dismissed, the defendant appealed to the OLG of Vienna.
The OLG of Vienna (AT) firstly holds that jurisdiction has to be determined according to the Brussels I Regulation. This also applies to the determination of the validity of the jurisdiction agreement: Originally, the clause was invalid according to the stricter rules of Austrian law. As the defendant moved to another Member State before the institution of the proceedings, Article 23 Brussels I Regulation now has to be considered. Articles 15 et seq. are not applicable as none of the cases provided for in Article 15 in order to define matters relating to consumers applies. According to the OLG of Vienna the jurisdiction agreement is valid as it was signed by the defendant. The fact that the plaintiff did not sign it is irrelevant, as the agreement was issued by him and his identity as party to the agreement is clear. Besides, the prerequisites of Article 5(1) (b) Brussels I Regulation are fulfilled, as the plaintiff brought proceedings before the court having jurisdiction over the seat of his law firm, wherefrom he performed the representation of his client.