Bundesgerichtshof; 2021-07-06; II ZR 206/20
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:BGH:2021:060721BIIZR206.20.0
Date: 2021-07-06
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82021DE0706(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case dealt with the Bundesgerichtshof (hereinafter the ‘Supreme Court’) concerned the international jurisdiction of national courts regarding the admission of a revision.
The parties to the dispute were a plaintiff domiciled in Germany and a defendant domiciled in Denmark. The plaintiff was the insolvency administrator within insolvency proceedings regarding the assets of an airport operating company (hereinafter ‘the debtor’) which was opened on 18 August 2016. The defendant had been the sole member of the debtor since 2010.
In January 2014, the annual meeting of the defendant decided to settle all debts of the debtor until 31 December 2016 by using its own equity and/or equity-like instruments. Based on the debtor’s application, the insolvency self-administration was ordered and the plaintiff appointed the preliminary insolvency administrator in January 2016. Referring to the decision made by the annual meeting of the defendant, the plaintiff demanded the payment of EUR 500.000 including interest or alternatively referring the dispute to a German court holding international jurisdiction.
The defendant did not enter an appearance and contested the international jurisdiction of the court seised. The Court of First Instance found the action inadmissible. The subsequent appeal against the decision was dismissed. The plaintiff pursued its claims further by filing a revision which was permitted by the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal stated that German courts did not hold international jurisdiction over the dispute. Under Article 4(1), Article 5(1) and Article 63(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), the defendant should be sued in courts in Denmark. The jurisdiction arising from the place of performance under Article 7(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) was not given in Germany. Independently of the start of the self-administration and the subsequent regular insolvency proceedings, the claims were contractual claims. Both the autonomously determined place of performance of a service and the place of performance under the national law regarding a simple payment led to the place of jurisdiction being the Danish courts.
The Supreme Court stated that the Court of Appeal was correct to have found that the dispute fell into the scope of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) and German courts did not hold the international jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court dismissed the revision pursuant to Article 552a ZPO (2).
(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) Zivilprozessordnung (Code of Civil Procedure).