Oberster Gerichtshof; 0020-10-08; 5 Ob 147/20h
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2020:0050OB00147.20H.1008.000
Date: 2020-10-08
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Austria

82020AT1008(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
An association (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed an action against a car manufacturer (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) asserting claims of 515 current of former owners of cars produced by the defendant, due to the manufacturer’s manipulation of their vehicle emissions software.
The plaintiff accused the defendant of causing intentional illegal damage and of unfair business practices.
According to the plaintiff, the seised court, the Landesgericht Korneuburg (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), held international jurisdiction under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) due to the fact that the purchase had been made in the district of the Court of First Instance, this being therefore the place where the harmful event occurred for the first time. The defendant challenged the international, local and subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance stating that the harmful event itself had not taken place in Austria. What happened in Austria was mere consequential damage and this was not relevant for the determination of the place where the harmful event took place.
The Court of First Instance found itself incompetent citing a lack of the international jurisdiction and rejected the action. In further stated that the damage asserted by the action was merely secondary damage.
The Oberlandesgericht Wien (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) upheld the appeal of the plaintiff and dismissed the objection of the lack of international jurisdiction. With regard to claims for compensation based on the manipulated emission software, the place where the harmful event occurred was under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) the place where the customer bought and took over the car from the dealership.
The defendant filed a revision against this decision with the Oberstes Gerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) arguing that the determination of the place of the harmful event in Austria contradicted the earlier case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter ‘CJEU’). The jurisdiction based on tort must be interpreted narrowly and be predictable for the defendant.
The revision was found admissible but unjustified according to a preliminary ruling made by the CJEU (2). The Court of Justice of the European Union decided that in relation to emissions manipulation, Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) was to be interpreted in the way that the place where the harmful event occurred was the place where the customer purchased the car. The respective harm materialised itself only upon the purchase of the car due to the fact that, having regard to the software manipulation, the customer paid a price in excess of the real value of the car.
The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant’s revision. The appellate proceedings in the Court of Appeal were resumed.
(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.
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 July 2020, Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG, C-343/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:534.