BGH; 2023-02-23; III ZR 242/21
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:BGH:2023:230223BIIIZR242.21.0
Date: 2023-02-23
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82023DE0223(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The Bundesgerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) received a complaint from a bank with worldwide subsidiaries that was sued for compensation. The complaint regarded the fact that the Oberlandesgericht München (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) did not permit a revision against its judgement. The first instance within the dispute was the Landgericht München.
Contrary to the opinion of the defendant, no revision grounds followed from the fact that the Court of Appeal considered the defendant to bear the secondary burden of production regarding the existence of a principal place of business under Article 63(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). To this extent, no preliminary ruling of the European Court of Justice was needed.
With regard to the requirements for proving the international jurisdiction, the applicable laws were the provisions of national law according to the given national court. Such laws may be applied under the precondition that they are not to the detriment of the practical effectiveness of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). This also applies to the question under which preconditions it is possible to facilitate proving and providing evidence, including the situations where a secondary burden of production is imposed on the other party of the dispute (the defendant in this case).
In addition, no reasonable doubts exist that regarding a company with several places of business, the principal place of business under Article 63(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) is the place of business having the biggest focus on external mark-oriented business activities. When comparing the size, the relevant personal and material resources of the individual places of business that they need for the scope of the conducted business are assessed.
Because the term ‘principal place of business’ is used in singular in Article 63(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), it is without any doubt that only one and not more principal places of business can exist, thus establishing legal certainty.
As the case did not bear any substantial importance and making a decision was not necessary for the further development of the law or to ensure a harmonised jurisdiction, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint of the defendant.
(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.