LG Frankfurt; 2022-09-08; 2-24 S 33/22,
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LGFFM:2022:0908.2.24S33.22.00
Date: 2022-09-08
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82022DE0908(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A consumer domiciled in Germany (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed an action against a company domiciled in the Netherlands (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) demanding to be refunded the payment for a holiday home.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the plaintiff booked a holiday home for a group of ten people through a German-language website. The group failed to arrive, and the plaintiff also refused the defendant’s offer of rebooking the stay. The plaintiff requested the defendant to pay him back the amount already paid, stating that it was impossible for the defendant to provide its services as the group, due to the number of people, would have been obliged to undergo quarantine. The defendant argued that it was possible for the group to use the holiday home without any restrictions. There was no obligatory quarantine but only a mere recommendation without any sanctions.
The Amtsgericht Königstein im Taunus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) as the court seised under Article 17(1)(c) and Article 18 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) issued an interim judgement where it found the lack of its own international jurisdiction. The jurisdiction for consumer matters was given, as the contract included besides simply the renting of the holiday home, other services such as the final cleaning, and access to sports facilities and other activities.
The appeal lodged by the defendant against the interim judgment with the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) was admissible and justified.
The provisions regarding the jurisdiction under Article 17(1)(c) and Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) are superseded by Article 24(1)(1)(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The courts holding jurisdiction are the court according to the place of the location of the immovable property. The fact that the plaintiff claimed that the defendant was not the owner of the family house did not change anything in this regard.
Regardless of the above fact, the decisive aspect for determining whether the action was substantiated or not was the question whether it was even possible to let the group into the property in the Netherlands due to the COVID-19 restrictions. This question had been answered correctly by the local court.
Despite the fact that the plaintiff tried to justify the existence of jurisdiction for consumer matters with the offered additional services, trying to present the defendant as a professional tour operator, the plaintiff failed to prove that this additional programme was essential for making its booking. In addition, these services were free of charge in the entertainment park, and it was not evident that they would make a substantial part of the total sum.
The Court of Appeal changed the decision of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the action of the plaintiff citing its inadmissibility.
(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).