Bundesgerichtshof; 2019-03-26; Bank; Versicherung; XI ZR 228/17
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:BGH:2019:260319UXIZR228.17.0
Date: 2019-03-26
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82019DE0326(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A bank domiciled in Germany (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed an action against an insurance company domiciled in London (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) asserting redress claims arising from related business transactions.
The plaintiff concluded consumer loan agreements with several lenders. The aim of these agreements was to provide financial means for the lenders to carry out one-off payments for capital life insurance agreements they parallelly concluded with the defendant. Afterwards, the lenders pointed out that the loan agreements and the insurance agreements represented related business transactions. The plaintiff concluded settlements with the lenders which contained the obligation of the lenders to realise their claims arising from the insurance agreements in favour of the plaintiff and the obligation of the plaintiff to waive part of its claims under the loan agreements.
The defendant challenged the admissibility of the action claiming a lack of international jurisdiction.
The Landgericht Frankfurt am Main found the action inadmissible and dismissed it.
The Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) dismissed the appeal.
The revision filed by the plaintiff with the Bundesgerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) was not successful.
The Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that jurisdiction according to the place of performance under Article 5(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation was not given in this case. A contract or matters relating to a contract may be established only when a party assumed an obligation towards another party voluntarily. The claims of the plaintiff were based on the underlying relationships between the respective related agreements. Under German law, redress claims are not meant for this type of contractual arrangement.
The plaintiff did not become the owner of the claims against the defendant on the basis of an assignment agreement concluded with the lenders.
In addition, the plaintiff also could not invoke the effectiveness of the agreed place of jurisdiction contained in the agreements made between the defendant and the lenders as this provision applied solely to legal disputes arising from the legal relationship established by the agreement.
The Supreme Court dismissed the revision of the plaintiff against the decision of the Court of 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.