Oberster Gerichtshof, Urteil vom 15/10/2002 10 Nc 103/02g
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2002:0100NC00103.02G.1015.000
Date: 2002-10-15
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Austria

82002AT1015(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff is domiciled in Austria. The defendant, domiciled in Germany, trades commercially in antiques. The plaintiff collects books as a consumer for pleasure. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant offered him an antique piece for sale through the internet auction site "e-bay" in Austria and guaranteed certain characteristics. The defendant accepted the plaintiff’s highest bid for this piece and received confirmation of the payment. The plaintiff alleges that the piece which he received was of poor quality. The plaintiff withdrew from the sale contract and demanded return of the purchase price. He requested a decision of the locally competent court before the Austrian courts.
The OGH (AT) rejects the plaintiff’s application for designation on the grounds that a domestic territorial jurisdiction is founded. The plaintiff domiciled in Austria, concluded, as a consumer, under Article 15(1)(c) Brussels I Regulation, a contract with the defendant domiciled in another Contracting State (Germany) for a purpose which was outside his trade or profession. The defendant operates a professional or a commercial activity in Austria. Therefore the plaintiff may alternatively raise a claim either before the courts of the Member States in whose jurisdiction the contractual partner is domiciled, or before the court at the consumer’s domicile. Indeed, the earlier version of Article 14(1) Brussels Convention/Lugano Convention only referred to “the courts” of the Contracting State in which the consumer is domiciled and thus only regulated the international jurisdiction, not however the territorial. However, since the coming into force of the Brussels I Regulation, Article 16(1) also regulates the territorial jurisdiction by referring to “the court at the place of the consumer’s domicile”. For this reason, an application for designation is no longer necessary.