Oberlandesgericht Wien, Urteil vom 30/10/2006 10 Ra 47/06i
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OLG0009:2006:RW0000359
Date: 2006-10-30
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Austria

82006AT1030(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff was working for a German company as a director. Insolvency proceedings against the company were commenced before the Insolvenzgericht of Munich (DE). The plaintiff had a pension contract with the company. He claimed compensation for the agreed pension entitlement. When that claim was rejected by the insolvency administrator, the plaintiff brought an action before the Arbeits- und Sozialgericht of Vienna (AT) to have his entitlement claim registered among the liabilities of the insolvent. He based the court's jurisdiction on Article 19(2)(a) Brussels I Convention, as he habitually carried out his work from Vienna. The insolvency administrator challenged the court's jurisdiction. According to him, the jurisdiction over registering the claims among the liabilities of the insolvent lies with the German courts, pursuant to Article 4(2)(h) European Insolvency Regulation, because the insolvency proceedings were opened in Munich. Through an interim decision, the court confirmed its own jurisdiction. The insolvency administrator appealed before the OLG of Vienna (AT).
The OLG of Vienna (AT) affirms the ruling of the court of first instance. It determines that the application to have claims registered is not a bankruptcy matter in the sense of Article 1(2)(b) Brussels I Regulation. According to the jurisprudence of the ECJ, the necessary close relationship to insolvency proceedings is missing. The claims of the plaintiff are independent of the insolvency of the company. The result of the insolvency is merely that the action must now be brought against the insolvency administrator to have the entitlement registered. The provision in Article 4(2)(h) European Insolvency Regulation deals only with the applicable law. It does not provide for a jurisdictional rule. The court of first instance was correct to base its jurisdiction on Article 19(2)(a) Brussels I Regulation, since the plaintiff habitually carried out his work in Vienna.