Oberster Gerichtshof; 2024-05-16; 9 Ob 13/24p
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2024:0090OB00013.24P.0516.000
Date: 2024-05-16
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Austria

82024AT0516(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A consumer domiciled in Austria (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) sought the improvement of his classic car purchased from a German entrepreneur dealing in classic cars and spare parts (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) in the form of a delivery of a suitable gearbox.
The plaintiff argued that the Bezirksgerichts Leopoldstadt (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) held international and local jurisdiction pursuant to Article 18(1) in conjunction with Article 17(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), as the defendant also directed its business activities to Austria. The defendant contested this and requested that the action be dismissed on the grounds of a lack of international and local jurisdiction on the part of the Court of First Instance.
The Court of First Instance, as well as the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), ruled in favour of the defendant and dismissed the action. There was insufficient evidence that the defendant had focused its activities on Austria. In particular, the trade in classic cars, unlike spare parts, did not take place via the defendant's website. However, the Court of Appeal allowed a revision in order to clarify the question of whether the orientation of the defendant's commercial activity had to be assessed separately according to business areas.
The Oberster Gerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) upheld the plaintiff's revision and amended the decisions of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal. It rejected the defence of lack of international and local jurisdiction. The defendant's website, which was accessible in both German and English, referred to Europe-wide customer acquisition (‘Our customers come from all over Europe’). In addition, the defendant advertised both classic cars and spare parts on its website and offered to ship spare parts throughout the EU. The connection between the sale of classic cars and spare parts is obvious, as buyers of classic cars in need of restoration are typically dependent on spare parts.
The Supreme Court clarified that the defendant also focussed its activities on Austria, as it was expressly prepared to conclude contracts with consumers from the EU, including Austria. The view that the trade in classic cars was not directed at Austria was therefore rejected. The question posed by the Court of Appeal regarding the separate assessment of business areas was thus answered.
The Supreme Court amended the decisions of the lower courts to the effect that the defence of international and local lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance was rejected.
(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.