OGH; 2019-12-16; 8 Ob 126/19s
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2019:0080OB00126.19S.1216.000
Date: 2019-12-16
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Austria

82019AT1216(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A private person residing in Austria (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) sought with its action in connection with the emission manipulation scandal a refund of the purchase price of the diesel engine car he bought from an Austrian car dealer (hereinafter ‘the defendant 1’) and which was produced by a car manufacturer seated in Germany (hereinafter ‘the defendant 2’).
Defendant 2 contested the international jurisdiction of the Landesgericht Wels (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) stating that the alleged first damage occurred at its seat in Germany and that the necessary close connection of the claims under Article 8 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) was not given.
The Court of First Instance declared itself to be lacking international jurisdiction with respect to defendant 2 and dismissed the action.
Based on the appeal of the plaintiff, the Oberlandesgericht Linz (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) upheld the international jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. It further stated that the plaintiff was entitled to invoke the place of jurisdiction based on the closeness of the claims towards defendant 2 under Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
The revision filed by the plaintiff with the Supreme Court (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) is admissible, but not justified. Under Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), a special place of jurisdiction is also applicable to defendant 2, provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings.
This is the case in this dispute. With respect to both defendants, the decisive question was whether there had been a software installed in the cars which would have allowed for emission manipulation. Answering this question is important to clarify the liability of defendant 1 under the purchase agreement on one part, and could justify the possible ground for a claim against defendant 2 on the other part. With respect to the contractual and delict liability due to uniform circumstances, this case is similar to another case the Supreme Court had already dealt with (2).
The Supreme Court did not uphold the revision of defendant 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) Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court,) judgment of 11. March 2010 - 4 Ob 173/09h.