EUPillar BGH, 17.9.2008

Summary

The German plaintiff brought an action for damages against the Greek defendant who was supposed to initiate and carry out the transaction of the purchase of an apartment in Greece. The purchase contract wasn’t performed because the owner of the apartment had refused to sell it and the defendant didn’t want to use the power of attorney regarding the sale of the apartment which had been granted by the owner. The defendant’s contact data had been accessible on another person’s website. The Regional Court and the Higher Regional Court both denied the international jurisdiction of German courts. The Federal Court of Justice affirmed these judgments. It held that the accessibility of a passive website in conjunction with the fact that the consumer becomes aware of an offer regarding a provision of services via this website wasn’t sufficient to assume the requirements of Art. 15 (1) (c) Brussels I. Further, to meet the requirements of Art. 15 (1) (c) in terms of the ‘directing of such activities’, it was necessary that the consumer has been motivated in the Member State the offer was supposed to be directed to. The accessibility of a website isn’t sufficient to assume a targeted activity towards a certain Member State. The criteria stated in the second part of the judgment is doubtful given the judgment Emrek (C-218/12) where the CJEU stated that Art. 15 (1) (c) Brussels I must be interpreted as meaning that that it does not require the existence of a causal link between the means employed to direct the commercial or professional activity to the Member State of the consumer’s domicile, namely an internet site, and the conclusion of the contract with that consumer.