Oberster Gerichtshof; 0020-06-29; 2 Ob 104/19m
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2020:0020OB00104.19M.0629.000
Date: 2020-06-29
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Lugano Convention
Origin: Austria

82020AT0629(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
An airline domiciled in Austria (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed an action against the operator of a hotel in India (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) seeking the payment of a compensation of EUR 260,000 in relation to a traffic accident.
An agreement regarding the accommodation of the plaintiff’s crew members at the defendant’s premises also included the transfer from the airport. During the journey to the hotel, a traffic accident happened which left several crew members injured. The accident was caused by culpable negligence on the side of the bus driver. The plaintiff asserted its own compensation claims (medical expenses, damage caused by delay etc.) as well as claims assigned to it by the injured crew members (compensation for suffering, treatment expenses).
According to the plaintiff, the international jurisdiction of the seised court, the Handelsgericht Wien, (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) resulted from the agreement on the place of jurisdiction which was included in the accommodation agreement. The defendant challenged the international jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance claiming that the respective traffic accident claims were subject to the Indian MVA (1) and were to be settled by the courts in India.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the objection of the lack of international jurisdiction stating that the agreed place of performance represented an agreement on the place of jurisdiction under Article 25(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2) and was to be interpreted autonomously.
The defendant lodged an appeal with the Oberlandesgericht Wien (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) in respect to the claims assigned by the crew members. The Court of Appeal dismissed the action citing the lack of international jurisdiction and stating that the agreed place of jurisdiction was effective only for parties that made that agreement. An extension to third parties (the crew members) would only have been possible if the third persons had agreed to the agreement on the place of jurisdiction in writing. This, however, was not the case in this dispute.
The revision filed by the plaintiff with the Oberstes Gerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) was found both admissible and justified.
The agreement on the place of jurisdiction had been concluded effectively. Even though the wording of the jurisdiction clause did not stipulate the circle of possible claimants (plaintiffs) in the event of a harmful event, it must have been clear for the defendant that should any harm be caused to the crew members, it was the crew members themselves who would come into question as claimants or plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court restored the resolution of the Court of First Instance.
(1) Motor Vehicles Act 1988.
(2) 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.