OLG Stuttgart; 2015-10-26; 5 U 46/15
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGSTUT:2015:1026.5U46.15.0A
Date: 2015-10-26
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Lugano Convention
Origin: Germany

82015DE1026(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A private person living in Germany (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’)  filed an action against a private person living in Switzerland (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) who was the sole shareholder and chairman of a meanwhile liquidated joint-stock company domiciled in Liechtenstein (hereinafter ‘the AG’) with a subsidiary in Switzerland seeking compensation for damage on the basis of the unauthorized provision of financial services in Germany.
Upon recommendation of a neighbour, who was an insurance broker, the plaintiff concluded with the AG in Switzerland an investment consulting agreement with an investment sum of EUR 230,000 which the plaintiff transferred from his bank account in Switzerland to the Swiss bank account of the AG. However, the investment resulted in a loss.
The Landgericht Ravensburg (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) dismissed the action citing a lack of international jurisdiction. Neither the place where the event which gave rise to the harm occurred (Handlungsort), nor the place where the harmful event itself occurred (Erfolgsort) were in Germany. Therefore, the German court could not be competent under Article 5(3) of the new Lugano Convention (1).
The plaintiff lodged an appeal with the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) seeking the annulment of the decision of the Court of First Instance.
The Court of Appeal upheld the international jurisdiction under Article 5(3) of the new Lugano Convention.
According to the Court of Appeal, the defendant as the wrongdoer had not pursued activities in Germany, but solely in Switzerland. Even though the place where the harmful event occurred was not in Germany (first loss of assets by the money transfer in Switzerland), it could be connected to the place where the event which gave rise to the harm occurred, i.e. the recommendation of the plaintiff’s neighbour acting as an ‘extended arm’ of the defendant.
The Court of Appeal annulled the decision of the Court of First Instance and referred the case back for a new hearing and decision to the Court of First Instance.
(1) Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.