LG Dortmund; 2019-01-10; 7 O 95/15
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LGDO:2019:0110.7O95.15.00
Date: 2019-01-10
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82019DE0110(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
Four natural persons residing in Pakistan (hereinafter ‘plaintiff 1, plaintiff 2, plaintiff 3 and plaintiff 4’ or jointly ‘the plaintiffs’) requested the payment of survivors' compensation (plaintiff 1, 2 and 4) and damages (plaintiff 3) by an action brought against a limited liability company established in Germany (hereinafter ‘the defendant’).
The plaintiffs traded in articles of clothing to end customers. They had entered into a business relationship with a company from Pakistan from which they had since purchased parts of the range of clothing it sells. Later, a fire broke out on the premises of the Pakistani company, killing 259 people and injuring at least 47 others. Plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4 lost their sons as a result of the fire. The third plaintiff himself suffered severe smoke poisoning with several permanent consequences as a result of the fire.
As the main basis for their claims against the defendant, the plaintiffs cite in particular an agreement on liability recognition (1) concluded by the defendant with the Organization ‘Q’ (2) under Pakistani law.
The defendant however was of the opinion that its payment obligation arises neither from Pakistani law nor from German law. Contrary to what the plaintiffs had assumed, the Code of Conduct (3) used by the defendant did not constitute a contract in favour of third parties or with protective effects in favour of third parties. Rather, it was a guide to compliance with the company's standards. Since the claims under Pakistani law are time-barred, further argumentation was not necessary.
The international jurisdiction of the seised court (Landgericht Dortmund) results from Article 4(4) in conjunction with Article 63(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (4). However, the action was judged as unfounded.
All claims of the plaintiffs were time-barred. An expert and legal scholar Professor commissioned by the Chamber came to the conclusion in his statement that, according to the legal principles applicable in Pakistan, the limitation period (5) for all claims of the plaintiffs should have been counted from the day of the fire at the latest.
The limitation period is to be taken into account ex officio, and the beginning of the statute of limitations may not be waived under the Pakistani law. The limitation period may be extended by way of exception (6), however, the plaintiffs had not sufficiently proven this is warranted.
The immediate aid of 1 million US dollars provided by the defendant on the basis of an agreement with Organisation 'Q' is not to be seen at the same time as an acknowledgement of liability under Pakistani law, as the plaintiffs claim. This agreement was reached at a time when neither the concrete cause of the damage nor its concrete consequences were known or foreseeable.
Should the statute of limitations not have been observed in theory, the action would not have been successful anyway. The defendant had no direct relationship whatsoever with the employees of the Pakistani company. The Code of Conduct was addressed exclusively to the defendant's contractual partner. His employees and their rights were not mentioned.
The plaintiff's complaint was dismissed.
(1) So-called  Acknowledgement of liability.
(2)  This organisation represented the plaintiffs and other affected persons.
(3) ‚Code of Conduct‘.
(4) 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.
(5) The limitation period is 1 year in the case of death (maximum 2 years) and 2 years in the case of personal injury.
(6) a) written acknowledgement of liability exists, b) the opposing party prevents the claimant from asserting the claim through malicious conduct, or c) another civil proceeding with the same facts is already being conducted within the limitation period.