Oberster Gerichtshof; 2020-11-04; 3 Ob 95/20x
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2020:0030OB00095.20X.1104.000
Date: 2020-11-04
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Austria

82020AT1104(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
An Austrian citizen (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed an action against a private person domiciled in Germany (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) seeking the payment of 6.00114227 bitcoins plus interest to his wallet.
The defendant wanted to make investments in several projects in Germany. In the absence of the plaintiff but with his consent, a friend of the plaintiff transferred the respective bitcoins via the cell phone of the plaintiff in the house of the defendant in the favour of the defendant.
The plaintiff claimed to have transferred the bitcoins to the defendant as a lender to a borrower. According to the plaintiff, the local jurisdiction followed from Article 7(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). The place of performance was at the domicile of the plaintiff which was located in the district of the Landesgerichts Wels (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’).
The defendant contested the international and local jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. In addition, the parties had not concluded any form of loan agreement. The place of performance was located at the domicile of the defendant due to her obligation to send the bitcoins.
The Court of First Instance rejected the action citing a lack of international jurisdiction. The bitcoins had been transferred from the plaintiff’s wallet directly into the individual projects, and this happened in the apartment of the defendant. The defendant had stated that she would return the same amount of bitcoins she had used for these investments. The contract made had the form of a barter contract with the place of performance in Germany.
The Oberlandesgericht Linz (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) did not uphold the appeal of the plaintiff citing that the Court of First Instance was right to find the agreement to be a barter contract.
Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a revision with the Oberstes Gerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) demanding that the decisions of both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal be annulled.
The revision was found admissible but not justified.
The case was found to be a dispute in consumer matters under Article 17 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The defendant had only been interested privately in the projects that the plaintiff participated in and which could solely have been invested into with bitcoins. The plaintiff had been looking for potential business partners in Germany and had been carrying out his trade of profession there. The plaintiff could sue only in the court in whose district the domicile of the defendant was located.
The Supreme Court dismissed the revision of the plaintiff.
(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