OLG Frankfurt; 2014-03-05; 11 SV 4/14
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGHE:2014:0305.11SV4.14.0A
Date: 2014-03-05
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82014DE0305(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The plaintiff (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) is asserting a claim for damages against three different defendants (hereinafter ‘the defendants’) before the Landgericht Gießen (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) for what he considers to be a failed investment in a fund based in Gütersloh.
Defendants 1 and 2 have their general place of jurisdiction within the district of the District Court of Bielefeld. The plaintiff seeks the designation of a joint competent court. He claims that the three defendants are not resident in Dubai, but in Plasmolen, Netherlands. The Court of First Instance should be designated as having joint jurisdiction pursuant to Article 15(1)(c), Article 16(1) or Article 59(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (1).
The first and second defendants requested that the application be dismissed or that the District Court Dortmund be designated as having joint jurisdiction. That court has exclusive jurisdiction in the present case under Article 32b of the ZPO (2). The third defendant is not domiciled in the Netherlands, but in Dubai.
The Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) is competent, pursuant to Article 36(2) of the ZPO, to determine the place of jurisdiction because the Court of First Instance, as the court first seised, is located in its district.
The third defendant has no general domestic place of jurisdiction.
Several options were available to the Court of Appeal.
Since there is such a close relationship between the defendants, it appears necessary to hear and determine their cases jointly in order to avoid conflicting decisions pursuant to both Article 6(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, which establishes the forum of the joinder of parties and Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation, which establishes the forum of the successful party.
The court of appeal has the option to determine the competent court in accordance with Article 36(1)(3) of the ZPO. The choice of jurisdiction is not limited to the extent that the Brussels I Regulation would give priority to the courts having jurisdiction. Nor does the fact that special jurisdictions are established in Germany regarding the third defendant preclude the determination of jurisdiction.
For reasons of procedural economy, the court of appeal also determined the District Court of Dortmund, in whose district the issuer from Gütersloh has its registered office, to be competent.
(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) Zivilprozessordnung (Code of Civil Procedure).