OLG Dresden; 2022-08-31; 5 U 798/22
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGDRES:2022:0831.5U798.22.00
Date: 2022-08-31
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82022DE0831(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case before the Oberlandesgericht Dresden (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) concerns a claim for damages.
An Austrian insurance company (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) was the legal successor to company FL following the merger, effective October 2016. In 2012 and 2013, the plaintiff purchased bearer bonds of the company FB for approximately EUR 60 000, which lost their value following FB's insolvency proceedings. The plaintiff only received payment of approximately EUR 4 300.
The plaintiff brought an action before the Landgericht Dresden (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) for damages under Article 826 and Article 823(2) of the BGB (1), claiming that his financial loss had been caused by a fraudulent investment scheme operated by the so-called I-Group, which had deceived investors. The claim against company FL (the defendant’s predecessor) was based on the allegation that FL was liable because of its business relationship with I-Group. According to the plaintiff, FL also had a duty to inform the public about the unusual transactions with FB.
The defendant contested the international jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance and denied involvement in the fraudulent scheme. The business relationship with the I-Group was limited to the conclusion of life insurance contracts with natural persons. There was nothing unusual, and the transactions were inconspicuous. Moreover, the business relationship with FB ended in 2011, before the plaintiff’s investments.
The Court of First Instance based its international jurisdiction on Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2), since the alleged damage has occurred in Dresden, where the money paid by the plaintiff for the bearer bonds was lost. On the merits, the court held that the claim was unfounded because the plaintiff had not convincingly demonstrated how FL’s representatives had specifically caused the financial loss, especially when the business relationship between FL and I-Group had been terminated before the plaintiff had invested in the bonds.
The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal, which confirmed the international jurisdiction of the German courts on the basis of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) since the place where the damage occurred was the place where the capital investment in the form of the bearer bond was acquired, i.e., Dresden. On the merits, the Court of Appeal also confirmed the conclusions of the Court of First Instance. Despite the plaintiff’s reliance on the findings of the criminal court, which confirmed the fraudulent investment scheme of the I-Group, these findings did not indicate that the persons acting on behalf of FL participated in the fraudulent investment scheme of the I-Group. The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant contributed to the fraud. The business relationship between the defendant and the I-Group consisted of standard insurance contracts without any indication that the defendant was aware of or involved in the fraudulent investments. The Court of Appeal also rejected the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant should have publicly disclosed the nature of the contracts with I-Group, as such obligations apply to the issuer of the financial instrument, which in this case would have been FB, not FL.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal.
(1) Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Civil Code).
(2) 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 (recast).