LG Stralsund; 2016-01-08; 7 O 415/14
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LGSTRAL:2016:0108.7O415.14.0A
Date: 2016-01-08
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82016DE0108(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A manufacturer of motor and sail yachts domiciled in Germany (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) sought the issuance of a negative declaratory judgment regarding the invalidity of claims for compensation in connection with the cross-border sale of a motor yacht to France.
After the operator of a boat dealership domiciled on the French Mediterranean coast (hereinafter ‘defendant 1’) sold a motor yacht previously purchased from the plaintiff further to its customer (hereinafter ‘defendant 2’), defendant 2 initiated prior to the proceedings in Germany, separate proceedings for the preservation of evidence against the plaintiff and defendant 1 with a French commercial court. Defendant 2 claimed that the starboard motor of the yacht was damaged. At the beginning of 2015, defendant 2 filed an action against the plaintiff and defendant 1 with a French commercial court seeking a compensation of damage and the refund of expenses incurred during the proceedings for the preservation of evidence.
The plaintiff was of the opinion that the Landgericht Stralsund (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) held local and international jurisdiction as the place of performance under the purchase agreement concluded with defendant 1 was in the district of this court. The matter had not become pending on the basis of the proceedings for the preservation of evidence in the French commercial court. Therefore, the proceedings in the Court of First Instance under Article 27 of the Brussels I Regulation (1) were not to be stayed.
On the contrary, defendant 1 and defendant 2 shared the opinion that the proceedings in the Court of First Instance were to be stayed due to the proceedings in France which they considered to be pending, claiming that the proceedings for the preservation of evidence and the proceeding regarding the action dealt with by the French commercial court were uniform proceedings.
The Court of First Instance submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union the following question regarding the interpretation of Article 30(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, which had not been dealt with by German case-law so far:
Does a document, with which separate proceedings for the preservation of evidence are initiated in a Member State during which an expert opinion is asked for by the court, at the same time represent a ‘document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document’, with which proceedings regarding an action based on the results of separate proceedings for the preservation of evidence between the same parties in the same Member State become pendant?
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.