Saarländisches Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken; 2016-12-22; 4 U 130/13
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGSL:2016:1222.4U130.13.0A
Date: 2016-12-22
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82016DE1222(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A company having its registered office in Germany (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’), which installs safety systems in the commercial and private sectors, is making a claim against a limited liability company under Spanish law (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) for remuneration claims arising from two contracts.
The Dr. (hereinafter ‘the Dr.’) is the managing director and sole shareholder of both the defendant and a stock corporation located in the same area as the defendant.
The plaintiff was commissioned to retrofit and install extensive security installations from another company in the properties used for residential purposes by the Dr., which included a villa in Gran Canaria and an apartment in Bad Nauheim.
The plaintiff's client and contractual partner is the defendant, which has not paid the remuneration for two contracts. By including the order confirmation on the defendant's letterhead, the Dr., as managing director of the defendant, determined that the defendant was the contractual partner. In addition, the liability to be sued results from the fact that the indisputable paid reduction of EUR 20,000 was fulfilled by the defendant.
The defendant denied the liability to be sued. Both contracts had been concluded with the Dr. in person. Therefore, no valid agreement on jurisdiction had arisen on which the plaintiff relies pursuant to Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation (1).
The Landgericht Saarbrücken (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) ordered the defendant to pay an amount of more than EUR 50,000.
The defendant's appeal to the Saarländischen Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) was successful.
It follows from the extensive taking of evidence that the plaintiff, who bears the burden of proof for the requirements of representation as the one who derives his rights from representation, has not proven that the Dr. acted in his name and with his power of representation as the defendant's representative.
If a legal transaction is disputed as to whether it was carried out in one's own name or in the name of a third party, a unilateral assertion of all necessary facts by the plaintiff suffices on the admissibility level for the conclusion of an effective agreement on the place of jurisdiction, whereas the determination of these facts is only necessary for the liability to be sued at the time of substantiation.
The Court of Appeal amended the judgment of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the claim.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.