BGH; 2022-09-28; XII ZR 7/22
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:BGH:2022:280922UXIIZR7.22.0
Date: 2022-09-28
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82022DE0928(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The dispute dealt with by the Bundesgerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) concerned the international jurisdiction of the German Courts and the claim for the payment of a road toll for the use of Hungarian motorways against a German car rental company.
The parties to the proceedings were a car rental company domiciled in Germany (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) and a company domiciled in Hungary (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’).
Four rental cars of the defendant used a section of a Hungarian motorway which was subject to a road toll. By its action, the plaintiff, whose object of business was the collection of the motorway toll due in Hungary, demanded the payment of EUR 958.95, including interest and EUR 409.35 for the out-of-court collection expenses. The Amtsgericht Frankfurt (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) dismissed the action. Based on an appeal of the plaintiff, the Landgericht Frankfurt (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) ordered the defendant to pay the requested amount. The defendant challenged this decision by filing a revision, which was found admissible.
The Court of Appeal stated that the applicable law was the law of Hungary following Article 4(2) and Article 19(1) and (3) of the Rome I Regulation (1).
The provisions of the Hungarian laws were not contrary to the German public policy (ordre public), be it with regard to the position of the vehicle keeper as the sole debtor under Article 15(2) of the Hungarian Road Traffic Act or with regard to the road toll being increased by a penalty charge under Article 7A(10) and Annex 1 to the Road Toll Regulation. The plaintiff was allowed to demand the payment of the respective road toll increased by the penalty charge under Annex 1 to the Road Toll Regulation due to the fact that the cars of the plaintiff had used sections of the road subject to road toll and the defendant failed to prove that the respective road toll had been paid.
According to a previous decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the action fell within the meaning of the term ‘civil and commercial matter’ under Article 1(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2). The international jurisdiction of German courts followed from Article 4(1) thereof as the defendant was domiciled in Germany.
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).