Oberster Gerichtshof; 2020-10-08; 3 Ob 125/20h
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2020:0030OB00125.20H.1008.000
Date: 2020-10-08
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Austria

82020AT1008(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
An Austrian association (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) representing consumers in their position as owners of cars of several brands filed an action against a German group (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) seeking compensation due to emission readings manipulations.
According to the plaintiff, the international jurisdiction of the Landesgericht Wiener Neustadt (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) followed from Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) due to the fact that it was in the district of the Court of First Instance where the purchase agreement had been concluded, the purchase price paid and the cars handed over.
The defendant contested the international and local jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. Neither the place where the damage occurred or the place of the event giving rise to it were located in Austria. There was no tortious claim for compensation given under Article 7(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
The Court of First Instance found itself incompetent citing a lack of international jurisdiction and rejected the action. According to the previous decisions made by the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter ‘CJEU’), the place where a harm relating solely to property occurred, is not to be determined solely in close connection to the particular violation of rights, but it was necessary to consider the broader perspective of the individual case as a whole.
The Oberlandesgericht Wien (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) upheld the appeal of the plaintiff, found the Court of First Instance to hold international jurisdiction and admitted the appeal to be heard. Only recently had the Court of Appeal made a ruling within parallel proceedings (2) and the defendant had not made any arguments which would not had been considered previously.
The plaintiff claimed in its revision filed with the Oberstes Gerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) that the Court of Appeal had not decided with regard to the objection of the defendant regarding the lack of local jurisdiction.
The defendant claimed in its revision filed with the Supreme Court that if the place of the harmful event were to be in Austria, it would be contrary to the case law of the CJEU, as the place of jurisdiction had to be predictable for the defendant.
The Supreme Court decided to stay the revision proceedings until the CJEU had made a ruling in the preliminary ruling proceedings no C-343/19. The CJEU decided (3) that in relation to emissions manipulation, Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) was to be interpreted in the way that the place where the harmful event occurred was in the Member State where the customer purchased the car.
The Supreme Court dismissed the revision of the plaintiff stating that Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) also contained provisions regarding local jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the competent court was dependent of the place of the harmful event.
The Supreme Court also further dismissed the revision of the defendant. The proceedings were to continue with the exception of the matter of the international and local jurisdiction.
(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) See AZ 2 R 31/19x.
(3) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 July 2020, Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG, C-343/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:534.