Oberster Gerichtshof, Urteil vom 01/12/2004 9 Ob 134/04b
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2004:RS0119630
Date: 2004-12-01
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Austria

82004AT1201(01)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff brought proceedings against the defendant, having its seat outside of Austria, before an Austrian court seeking compensation following the rescission of a franchise agreement. The agreement contained a clause according to which disputes "shall be determined before the courts having jurisdiction over the district in which the defendant party has its seat". The court of first instance dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that the clause constituted a valid jurisdiction agreement. This was affirmed by the appellate court.
The OGH (AT) holds that the court designated to have jurisdiction according to the jurisdiction agreement does not have to be derived from the wording of the latter. According to Article 23 Brussels I Regulation it is sufficient that objective criteria are contained in the wording on the basis of which the competent court can be determined. Where it was agreed that the respective defendant party shall be sued before the court at its seat, the defendant is assessed at the latest when the proceedings are instituted. Consequently, the court at the defendant's seat has exclusive jurisdiction.