Case number and/or case name
OLG Dresden, 14.1.2014 – 4 U 717/13
Summary
The parties argued about insurance claims. The claimant was a German bank. It asserted claims that had been transferred to him by the insured person. It was doubtful whether German courts were internationally competent pursuant to Art. 9 (1) (b) Brussels I.
The court denied its international jurisdiction. It held that neither the bank nor its insolvency administrator based in another Member State could legally bring an action before German courts against an insurance company pursuant to Art. 9 (1) (b) Brussels I.
The judgment is correct. First, the bank couldn’t be considered as ‘beneficiary’ within the meaning of Art. 9 Brussels I because it didn’t benefit directly from the insurance contract. However, the fact that the bank had been transferred the claims also doesn’t establish a venue pursuant to Art. 9 Brussels I. The rule aims to establish a protection for the named parties. An application of the rule required that the assignee’s position in dispute called for the same protection as granted for the parties named in Art. 9. Such a need for protection can’t be stated in the present case. The rule’s scope of application can’t be extended to further cases except in case of a certain CJEU jurisdiction as for example C-463/06 (Odenbreit).