Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen; 2014-04-25; 2 U 102/13
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGHB:2014:0425.2U102.13.0A
Date: 2014-04-25
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82014DE0425(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A German company engaged in the bottling and packaging of beverages (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought an action seeking damages from an Icelandic transport and logistics company (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), which is the subsidiary of a Dutch holding company in Rotterdam.
The defendant caused considerable damage during the transport of a brewery plant from Antwerp (Belgium) to Altamira (Mexico) and the recipient refused to take over the consignment.
The consignee and four transport insurers of the plaintiff, to whom the plaintiff assigned its claims for damages, turned to Belgian courts, with the Antwerp Court of Appeal declining jurisdiction upon appeal. On the back of the bill of lading issued by the defendant, the plaintiff concluded, with the defendant and recipient, a jurisdiction clause for jurisdiction in Iceland and Icelandic law as the applicable law. This jurisdiction clause is effective.
Following the consolidation of the proceedings initiated by the 4 transport insurers before the Landgericht Bremen (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) with the proceedings initiated by the plaintiff before the Landshut District Court, these 5 plaintiffs subsequently jointly pursued their claims for damages before the Court of First Instance.
The defendant is of the opinion that the international jurisdiction of German courts does not apply. The German courts are bound by the judgment of the Belgian court by virtue of the extension of effects under Article 33 of the Brussels I Regulation (1). The claims are time-barred under Icelandic and German law. Gross negligence is not applicable.
The Court of First Instance, which referred a question to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the concept of ‘judgment’ (Article 32 of the Brussels I Regulation) and the scope of procedural judgments denying jurisdiction (Article 35 of the Brussels I Regulation), dismissed the application. The court before which recognition is sought of a judgment denying jurisdiction to a court of another Member State on the basis of an agreement conferring jurisdiction is bound by the validity of that agreement as established in the grounds of a final judgment dismissing the action as inadmissible. A valid agreement on jurisdiction exists.
The plaintiff’s appeal to the Hanseatischen Oberlandesgericht Bremen (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) was unsuccessful. The Icelandic courts are also bound by the decision of the Antwerp Court of Appeal pursuant to Articles 32 to 35 of the new Lugano Convention (2), which correspond exactly to Articles 32 to 35 of the Brussels I Regulation.
Apart from that, the plaintiff’s claims are time-barred under Icelandic law. No reasons are apparent which would have prevented the plaintiff or its legal predecessors from bringing an action for damages in Iceland within an unspecified period of time.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal.
(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) Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.