OLG Hamm; 2022-04-25; I-17 U 4/22, 17 U 4/22
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGHAM:2022:0425.17U4.22.00
Date: 2022-04-25
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82022DE0425(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A German company specialising in steel coatings (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) sued a steel construction company (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), which was also German but belonged to an Austrian group of companies, for a remaining payment of EUR 47 333.94 from a final invoice for services rendered. The defendant had commissioned the plaintiff with the coating of steel parts. The contract was concluded between the parties taking into account specific terms and conditions of the contract for work and services, which contained a choice-of-court agreement in favour of a district court in Austria.
The plaintiff disputed the validity of the choice-of-court agreement and brought the action before the Landgericht Dortmund (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’). It argued that the clause was surprising, ineffective and had not been individually negotiated. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the jurisdiction of the Austrian court had been validly agreed.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the plaintiff’s action stating that the choice-of-court agreement was valid, and the Court of First Instance did not hold international jurisdiction as a result. The Court of First Instance based its decision on Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), which allowed the parties to agree on the jurisdiction of a court in a Member State provided that certain formal requirements were met. The Court of First Instance considered these requirements to have been met.
The plaintiff lodged an appeal with the Oberlandesgericht Hamm (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) and pursued its claim further, expanding on its previous arguments. The parties to the dispute were two German companies, with the defendant being an independent company. The place of fulfilment of the contract in North Rhine-Westphalia also argued against the jurisdiction of a foreign court. The defendant defended the judgment of the Court of First Instance and argued that the choice-of-court agreement had been individually negotiated and complied with the requirements of Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Court of First Instance. It stated that Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) was applicable even if the parties were domiciled in the same Member State. The decisive factor is that there was an international connection. In the present case, this connection resulted from the contractual negotiations with the Austrian parent company and the processing of payment transactions via this company. Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) took precedence over national law. Even if national law regarding general terms and conditions were applicable, the disputed clause could not be designated as surprising or disadvantageous due to the fact that the plaintiff signed and initialled the agreement.
(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.