OLG Brandenburg; 2022-07-14; 12 U 58/22
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGBB:2022:0714.12U58.22.00
Date: 2022-07-14
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82022DE0714(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A private person domiciled in Germany (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed an action against a private limited company domiciled in the United Kingdom (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) demanding the payment of EUR 6 000.
Based on a merger, the defendant was the legal successor of a joint-stock company from which the plaintiff had acquired profit participation certificates in the total value of EUR 6 000. The plaintiff terminated its participation. Despite having acknowledged the termination, the defendant did not pay out the value of the participation certificates to the plaintiff.
The defendant contested the international jurisdiction of the court seised.
The Landgericht Potsdam (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), as the court seised under Article 17(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), ordered the defendant to pay EUR 6 000 to the plaintiff, citing that the notice of termination was effective and established a right to be paid out 100 % of the nominal value of the participation certificates. The defendant, having the burden of proof, failed to substantiate the alleged loss carryforward, as well as the existence of any net loss as the respective field in the profit and loss statement for 2017 included the value of 0.00 %.
The appeal lodged by the defendant with the Bandenburgisches Oberlandesgericht (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) was not successful.
The Court of Appeal stated that jurisdiction for consumer matters was given as the plaintiff was without any doubt a consumer. From the perspective of the dispute, the decisive time factor was the conclusion of the contract and not the current activities of the defendant. The legal predecessor of the defendant also aimed its business to Germany. It concluded capital investment agreements regarding the acquisition of participation certificates with a number of private investors domiciled in Germany, had bank accounts with German banks and used the German language for its communication with investors.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Court of First Instance and confirmed the obligation of the defendant to pay out the whole value of the investment 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 (recast).