PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

BGH, 24.2.2015 – VI ZR 279/14

Details of the court

Germany, Third Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

23 February 2015

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The plaintiff is a German citizen and resident. The defendant is from Belgium. The parties had a car accident on a highway in Belgium where the plaintiff hit the car of the defendant. The insurance company of the defendant is also seated in Belgium. The plaintiff is suing for damages. The instance courts denied the international jurisdiction. The plaintiff is appealing against these decisions. The court stated that there may be an international jurisdiction regarding a proceeding against the insurance company according to Art. 11 (2) Brussels I. With regard to the defendant, the court extensively considered jurisdiction according to Art. 6 no. 1 Brussels I. The court stated that an application of Art. 6 no. 1 is hindered by the fact that one of the defendants is domiciled in Germany. This makes an application of Art. 6 no. 1 impossible even when the claims are extremely connected. An analogy is not allowed in such a case. Art. 6 no. 1 requires general jurisdiction according to Art. 2 (1) Brussels I and cannot be interpreted extensively with regard to a special jurisdiction. The court argues with the wording of Art. 6 no. 1 Brussels and the case law of the CJEU on this point. Paying attention to this way of interpreting Art. 6 no. 1 Brussels I, the court denies international jurisdiction in this case. The judgement is in line with the case law of the CJEU and the majority of opinions of academic scholars.