During the proceedings before different courts the defendant has changed his domicile several times from Germany to France and back. The court had to examine the international jurisdiction of German courts.
The court stated that the international jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 2 (1) Brussels I could be assumed if it solely occurred at one point of time in the course of the proceedings. Once the international jurisdiction was established it remained even if the justifying circumstances were no longer given (perpetuatio fori).
There is the unwritten principle in EU-law that the jurisdiction – once established – remains (perpetuation fori). This prevents manipulations of the international jurisdiction and delays in the proceedings and further promotes the foreseeability of judgments (see Recital 11 Brussels I Regulation). In German jurisprudential literature it is disputed whether the conditions of Art. 2 (1) Brussels I have to be given at the point of the delivery of the action or in the moment where the action is filed. In the present case the international jurisdiction was assumed by the court because the defendant has had his domicile in Germany after the proceedings were instituted but before the end of the hearing before the court. The defendant has had his domicile in France when the enforcement request was made by the plaintiff and also when the enforcement decision was submitted. Then he changed his domicile to Germany and after the oral proceedings changed it again to France. It therefore seems not clear to assume the international jurisdiction of German courts without making a request to the CJEU. The acte clair as the court assumes doesn’t seem to be given in the present case.