BGH; 2017-11-14; VI ZR 73/17
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:BGH:2017:141117UVIZR73.17.0
Date: 2017-11-14
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82017DE1114(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case dealt with by the Bundesgerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) concerned international jurisdiction and the term statutory seat.
The subject-matter of this case was a dispute between a health insurance company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) and a Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung type company (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). In 2011, a person insured by the plaintiff got hurt in an accident while carrying out some work for the defendant on a tribune. The registered office and business address of the defendant is registered with the commercial register kept by the Amtsgerichts Hannover and the defendant has a branch under the same business name in Meran, Italy.
The plaintiff filed an action with the Landgericht Hannover (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) seeking compensation for damage. The Court of First Instance considered itself to be lacking jurisdiction and dismissed the action as inadmissible. Based on the appeal of the defendant, the Court of Appeal cancelled this decision and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance.
The Court of Appeal found that the Court of First Instance was the competent court having jurisdiction under Article 63(a) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). For the sake of the application of this regulation, companies and legal persons are domiciled at the place where they have their statutory seat, central administration or the principal place of business. According to the files from the commercial register, the statutory seat of the defendant was in Hannover and only the central administration had been moved to Meran, Italy.
Article 4(1) of the new Brussels I Regulation (recast) and Article 2(1) of the  Brussels I Regulation (2) stipulate that persons domiciled in a Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State.
The ‘statutory seat’ within the meaning of Article 63(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) and Article 60(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation is the seat stipulated in the articles of association. The scope and permissible content of articles of association is governed by national law. (3) The seat of legal persons has been defined in the regulations in order to increase transparency of the common rules and to prevent conflicts regarding competency. The requirement of a minimal scope of administrative and/or business activities at the statutory seat would reduce the intended predictability and transparency of regulations.
Adequately, it is completely admissible to determine the local jurisdiction of a court on the basis of a statutory seat regardless of the scope of administrative and/or business activities being carried out there. The registration itself is sufficient. The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the defendant’s revision against the ruling of the Court of Appeal.
(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) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
(3) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 November 2011, National Grid Indus BV, C‑371/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:785, paragraph 26.