OLG Frankfurt; 2019-11-19; 5 U 162/18
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGHE:2019:1119.5U162.18.00
Date: 2019-11-19
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Lugano Convention
Origin: Germany

82019DE1119(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A German tile dealer (hereinafter the ‘plaintiff’) filed an action against a German special-purpose entity (hereinafter the ‘defendant’) demanding the payment of its expenses regarding the settlement of invoices concerning the alleged claims of the defendant.
The plaintiff was, as an intermediary, selling the products of a reputable Italian mosaic producer (hereinafter the ‘Italian producer’). The defendant, in which the plaintiff and the Italian producer directly participated, was founded solely for the purpose of the reorganisation of sales on the German market. This aim, however, had not been carried out. Following the failed cooperation, the parties had several legal disputes.
The Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), as the court seised, stayed the proceedings under Article 27 of the Brussels I Regulation (1), stating that proceedings (2) were being conducted in an Italian court with an identical claim under Article 27(1) of the Brussels I Regulation. Subsequently, the referential Italian proceedings were concluded with a final judgement which upheld the action of the defendant. The Court of First Instance dismissed the action of the plaintiff fully, citing its inadmissibility due to the fact that the demands of the plaintiff had been rejected with final effectiveness within the Italian proceedings.
The appeal of the plaintiff lodged with the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) was not successful. The Court of First Instance was correct to dismiss the action as inadmissible due to the existence of identical claims, as the action in Italy and in Germany concerned the same facts and pursued the same purpose. The decision was in line with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Both actions had the same subject matter (purpose).
The action of the plaintiff was inadmissible from the very beginning as a dispute between the parties regarding the same claim had already been pending in an internationally competent court of a different Member State. It was not necessary to examine the jurisdiction of the Italian court regarding the proceeding conducted in Italy because the plaintiff entered an appearance under Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff against the decision of the Court of First Instance.
(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.
(2) The Italian producer charged the plaintiff with an amount of EUR 235_941.84 and initiated a court action against the plaintiff in Italy, demanding the payment of this sum.