BGH; 2022-12-07; XII ZR 34/22
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:BGH:2022:071222UXIIZR34.22.0
Date: 2022-12-07
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82022DE1207(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The dispute dealt with by the Bundesgerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) concerned a claim for the payment of a road toll for using Hungarian motorways with an incorrect international vehicle registration code.
The parties to the dispute were the keeper of a vehicle domiciled in Germany (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) and a company domiciled in Hungary (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’).
Before using roads in Hungary that were subject to a road toll, the defendant bought a valid electronic vignette. The licence plate number was entered correctly, but the field ‘Country of vehicle registration’ contained ‘Hungary’ despite the vehicle being registered in Germany.
By its action, the plaintiff, whose object of business was the collection of the motorway toll due in Hungary, demanded the payment of EUR 364.80. The Amtsgericht Tempelhof-Kreuzberg (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) ordered the defendant to pay the required amount. After the Landgericht Berlin (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) dismissed the appeal of the defendant, the defendant pursued its claim further by filing a revision, which was found admissible.
According to the Supreme Court, the applicable law was the law of Hungary, following Article 4(2) and Article 19(1) and (3) of the Rome I Regulation (1). According to a previous decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union, an action regarding the payment of a Hungarian road toll fell within the meaning of the term ‘civil and commercial matter’ under Article 1(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2).
The Supreme Court found that the provisions of the Hungarian law, namely the Road Toll Regulation, regarding the collection of a road toll upon the usage of an incorrect international vehicle registration code were not contrary to German public policy (ordre public). The Supreme Court stated that a vehicle could only be unambiguously identified through the combination of its licence plate number and the international vehicle registration code. The fact that only unambiguously identified vehicles could use the roads served a legitimate purpose.
It was, however, legally objectionable that the Court of Appeal ordered the defendant to pay the amount owed in the domestic currency. Debts in a foreign currency must be asserted in the respective foreign currency. The Supreme Court annulled therefore the contested decision and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal for a new hearing and decision.
(1) Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I).
(2) 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 (recast).