OLG Düsseldorf; 2020-09-07; VI-U (Kart) 4/20, U (Kart) 4/20
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGD:2020:0907.U.KART4.20.00
Date: 2020-09-07
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82020DE0907(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
German shepherd associations from Germany and the USA which were active in the areas of pure dog breeding, dog shows and purebred dog sport (hereinafter the ‘plaintiffs’) applied for the issuance of a preliminary ruling against a German umbrella association of individual dog associations (hereinafter the ‘defendant’) representing multiple dog breeds.
The plaintiffs were members of an international umbrella association of German shepherd associations (hereinafter the ‘German shepherd umbrella association’). The defendant was, as the single German association, a member of the biggest dog association representing multiple dog breeds (hereinafter the ‘worldwide association G.’). One of the oldest dog breed associations in Germany (hereinafter the ‘T-association’) was the member of both the German shepherd umbrella association and the defendant, thus indirectly of the worldwide association G.
The worldwide association G. terminated a cooperation agreement which it concluded with the German shepherd umbrella association which, among other things, contained provisions concerning the use of the T-association’s referees for events and competitions organised by both parties.
Based on an instruction of the defendant, which conformed to the internal association rules, the T-association was instructed not to send its referees to the events organised by the worldwide association G.
By their action, the plaintiffs demanded the issuance of a preliminary ruling against the above instruction.
The Landgericht Dortmund (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) preliminarily forbade the defendant to instruct the T-association not to send its own referees to the plaintiffs as well as other members of the worldwide association G. in countries where any official form of cooperation did not exist.
The appeal of the defendant lodged by the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) against the preliminary ruling was found admissible and justified.
The Court of First Instance held international jurisdiction under Article 4(1) and Article 63 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1).
Despite the fact that the defendant issued the underlying provision of its rules of association and its instruction within their position an association of undertakings and the instruction represented an intentional limitation of competition and, as such, was in breach of Article 101(1) TFEU (2), the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently prove the urgency of the issuance of a preliminary ruling sufficiently.
Based on the appeal of the defendant, the Court of Appeal changed the decision of the Court of First Instance, annulled the preliminary ruling and dismissed the application for the issuance of a preliminary ruling.
(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) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.