OGH; 2018-06-11; 4 Ob 88/18x
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2018:0040OB00088.18X.0611.000
Date: 2018-06-11
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Austria

82018AT0611(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A company based in Russia who is the legal successor to a Russian state-owned company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) made claims for injunction, removal, publication of judgment, and accounting claims against a company based in Luxembourg (hereinafter ‘the defendant’).
The defendant is registered with the Austrian Patent Office as the holder of the rights to the trademarks ‘Moskovskaya’ and ‘Stolichnaya’ vodka. The plaintiff complains that in 1990 and 1991, the privatisation of the Russian state-owned company in question in Russia did not lead to an effective transformation of the state-owned company into the defendant’s legal predecessor due to numerous deficiencies. That fact had already been confirmed by Dutch courts and the transformation of Russian state-owned company into a trading company was found to be null and void. The plaintiff asserted they are the legitimate owner of the disputed trademarks on the Austrian market, as they are on the Benelux market. The Austrian courts are bound by the assessment of the Dutch courts.
The defendant asserted that they are the owner of the trademarks on the basis of effective overall succession and trademark transfer. The plaintiff's claims were time-barred.
The Landesgericht Linz (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) granted the action. The plaintiff’s claims were not time-barred.
The Oberlandesgericht Linz (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) rejected the plaintiff's claims to the Austrian trademarks. The validity of the nullity of the transformation of the Russian state-owned company is time-barred. Furthermore, the decisions of the Dutch courts were not to be taken into account because they were not received by the Court of First Instance before the end of the oral proceedings. In this case, the prohibition of novation applied.
In the Oberster Gerichtshof der Republik Österreich (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’), the plaintiff lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of the Court of Appeal, which is admissible and also justified.
The Court of Appeal misjudged the facts crucial to the decision. The Austrian courts are bound by the decisions of the Dutch courts.
Under Article 33(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (1), the judgments and decisions of foreign courts are automatically recognised domestically and gain material legal force. Such decisions are to be recognised ex officio in each Member State and ipso iure (without any special procedure) (Article 32 of the Brussels I Regulation) and have the same legal effects in each Member State as in the judgment state.
The recognition also includes the assessment of the statute of limitations, which was decided in a binding preliminary judgment requested by the Dutch court (2).
The defendant’s argument that the transformation of state-owned company into a trading company is an act of sovereignty of the Russian state is also incomprehensible. If a measure is introduced by law, it does not mean that the state is exercising its sovereign rights. It is a corporate law operation, that is, a commercial matter within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation.
The Supreme Court followed the plaintiff’s appeal on points of law, overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision and charged the Court of Appeal with a new decision.
(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) These are prejudicial questions that are significant to the respective decision.