OGH; 2020-02-26; 1 Ob 22/20x
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2020:0010OB00022.20X.0226.000
Date: 2020-02-26
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Lugano Convention
Origin: Austria

82020AT0226(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A private person domiciled in Austria (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought an action against an auditor domiciled in Germany (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) seeking compensation for damage.
The defendant was an auditor of a GmbH company domiciled in Munich (hereinafter ‘the GmbH’) from which the plaintiff had bought ten sea freight containers. At the same time, the plaintiff commissioned the GmbH to manage these containers against the payment of a daily rental charge. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had neglected his duties when he failed to inform the plaintiff on the then current situation of the GmbH resulting in insolvency proceedings.
The Landgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) confirmed its international jurisdiction.
The Oberlandesgericht Wien (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) changed the resolution of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the action due to the lack of international jurisdiction.
The revision filed by the plaintiff with the Oberstes Gerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) was not successful.
The international jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) was not given.
The Court of Appeal based its decision on the statement of the plaintiff that the respective purchase agreement with the GmbH had been concluded in Vienna and that purchase price had been for the containers had been paid to an Austrian bank. However, there had been no other specific circumstances connected to Austria. This substantial precondition for the international jurisdiction had not been fulfilled as the international jurisdiction does not follow from the domicile of the defendant but from the loss on the domestic territory incurred from a harmful event or business transaction.
The Supreme Court dismissed the revision of the plaintiff.
(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.