OLG Frankfurt; 2022-04-08; 11 SV 4/22
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGHE:2022:0428.11SV4.22.00
Date: 2022-04-28
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82022DE0428(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This order concerns the question of jurisdiction in a multi-defendant case brought before the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’).
The natural person domiciled in Germany (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought proceedings before the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) against a car dealer domiciled in Germany (hereinafter ‘defendant 1’) and the car manufacturer domiciled in the Netherlands (hereinafter ‘defendant 2’). The case concerns the so-called ‘diesel scandal’. The plaintiff claimed from defendant 1 the delivery of a different (non-defective) vehicle and from defendant 2 compensation for damages caused by tampering with the previously delivered defective vehicle. Defendant 1 challenged the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, which referred the matter to the Court of Appeal for a decision on jurisdiction on the basis of Article 36(1)(3) of the ZPO (1).
The Court of Appeal recalled that Article 36(1)(3) of the ZPO applies ‘if several persons who have their general place of jurisdiction before different courts are to be sued as parties to the dispute in the general place of jurisdiction and a joint special place of jurisdiction is not established’. In this case, the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2) allows for the establishment of a common place of jurisdiction. According to Article 8(1) thereof, ‘a person domiciled in a Member State may also be sued, where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled, 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‘.
The Court of Justice of the European Union had already ruled that the place of jurisdiction for the claims relating to the so-called 'diesel scandal' was the place where the contract of sale was concluded.
The Court of Appeal concluded that jurisdiction over defendant 1 is based on its place of business. Defendant 2 can then be sued at the place of business of defendant 1 pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), without it being necessary to consider the other articles of the Regulation. Consequently, there is no need to give a ruling under Article 36(1)(3) of the ZPO.
(1) Zivilprozessordnung (Code of Civil Procedure).
(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).