LG Wuppertal; 2014-12-12; 16 S 31/13, 16 S 32/13
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LGW:2014:1212.16S31.13.16S32.13.00
Date: 2014-12-12
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82014DE1212(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A private person domiciled in Germany (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed an action against a company domiciled in the Netherlands (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), who operated a holiday complex in the Netherlands, asserting financial claims.
The plaintiff acquired first a mainland villa in the holiday complex which he later sold. Later, the plaintiff concluded a purchase agreement with the defendant regarding a floating holiday house (hereinafter ‘the marina’) in the holiday complex. The provisions of the purchase agreement stipulated that the Dutch law and jurisdiction should be applicable to any disputes between the parties. The plaintiff sought that the defendant refund him the fees paid to the water company and fees for sewage water which, according to the plaintiff, had been charged unjustly.
The Amtsgericht Solingen (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) rejected both actions (1) citing their inadmissibility and also rejected the special jurisdiction under Article 15(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation (2).
The plaintiff lodged the respective appeals against this decision with the Landgericht Wuppertal (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) arguing the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dutch courts under Article 22 of the Brussels I Regulation was not given as the subject-matter of the dispute were not rights in rem or the lease or the usufructuary lease of immovables but instead claims relating to unjust enrichment as the defendant had received payments it was not entitled to and was obliged to pay them back.
The Court of Appeal stayed both proceedings expressing the opinion that the actions concerned rights in rem to immovables (villa and marina). Contrary to the conclusion of the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal found that the applicability of Article 15(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation could not be ruled out as the defendant directed its activities to Germany (3).
The Court of Appeal submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union a request for a preliminary ruling concerning whether Article 22(1)(1) of the Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted to the extent that the exclusive jurisdiction contained therein also applied to claims relating to the refund of utilities/fees paid in connection with an immovable property and whether the jurisdiction also applied to floating houses.
(1) The refund claims concerned both the villa und the marina.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(3) Promotion of the holiday complex with prospects in Germany language, the webpage in German language, German bank account.