OLG Hamm; 2022-10-26; I-14 U 8/22
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGHAM:2022:1026.14U8.22.00
Date: 2022-10-26
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82022DE1026(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This legal dispute concerns a claim for an interim injunction, which was decided by the Oberlandesgericht Hamm (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’).
The plaintiff maintained an account on the social network ‘A’ operated by the defendant, on which it had published several offensive posts. The defendant then blocked the account and informed the plaintiff that the account had been blocked due to ‘a violation’ of A’s terms of service.
The plaintiff applied for an interim injunction ordering the defendant to refrain from blocking her account on A.com. The defendant has requested that the application be rejected. The defendant further claims that the plaintiff's contributions violate both A’s terms of service and German criminal law (in particular, Article 185 of the German Criminal Code).
The Landgericht Dortmund (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) issued the interim injunction in the contested judgement, in accordance with the application, on the grounds that the defendant had breached the underlying contractual agreements by blocking the website and thus not complying with the formal guidelines established by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice). With the appeal, the defendant continues to pursue its first-instance motion to dismiss.
The question of the international jurisdiction of German courts to decide on the present application in preliminary injunction proceedings is governed by the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) because the defendant has its registered office in a Member State of the European Union. With regards to the claim pursued by the plaintiff in the main proceedings, the international jurisdiction of the German courts arises from Article 7(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) because the defendant has to fulfil its contractual obligations at the plaintiff's domicile, i.e. in Germany. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the Court of First Instance had erred in issuing its interim injunction.
The issuance of an interim injunction ordering a social network provider to unblock access to an account requires the substantiation of urgent grounds relating to the specific case that go beyond the general importance of social networks for participation in social communication. The plaintiff, who carries the burden of presenting and substantiating the facts supporting the assumption of a reason for the injunction, has not presented any circumstances that could justify the issuance of the requested performance order.
In view of the above, the Court of Appeal decided to dismiss the application for an interim injunction.
(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 (recast).