LG Darmstadt; 2018-10-14; 11 O 226/17
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LGDARMS:2018:1024.11O226.17.00
Date: 2018-10-24
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82018DE1024(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case dealt with by the Landgericht Darmstadt (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) concerned the claim regarding the refund of a purchase price. In November 2011, the plaintiff bought a vehicle from a company, ‘A’, domiciled in […] which had been acquired in the Netherlands shortly before the sale. The defendant was the car manufacturer.
The car contained a diesel engine with software that could recognise whether the car went through an emissions test or was operated in real traffic. If the car was tested, the rate of exhaust gas recirculation was relatively high as opposed to the rate when used in traffic. The subsidiary C of the defendant informed the plaintiff that the difference between the test and real traffic results caused by the software had been inadequate and the software had to be updated.
The plaintiff unsuccessfully demanded that the defendant take the car back and refund the purchase price. The plaintiff claimed that the car was defective and sought by its action that the defendant be ordered to refund the purchase price against the return of the car.
As the defendant was domiciled in [EU Member State], the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) was applicable. Under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), a person may be sued in another Member State in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or might have occurred. However, the plaintiff did not claim any harmful event caused by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that it suffered a financial loss by concluding the disadvantageous purchase agreement. According to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (2), the place where a financial loss had been incurred does not give rise to international jurisdiction.
The international jurisdiction did not follow from Article 7(5) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) either. According to the above provision, regarding disputes arising out of the operations of a branch, a person may be sued in the courts for the place in which the branch is situated. However, it was not discernible and the plaintiff also did not claim that the defendant would be making its business from […]. The mere fact that the defendant C was a subsidiary of the defendant did not justify this assumption.
The Court of First Instance found the action inadmissible citing the lack of its own international jurisdiction and dismissed the action for this reason.
(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.
(2)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 June 2016, Universal Music International Holding BV, C-12/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:449, paragraph 40.