PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

OLG Frankfurt/Main, 26.11.2008 – 7 U 251/07

Details of the court

Germany, Second Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

25 November 2008

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The plaintiff brought an action for damages because of an alleged incorrect asset management. The court had to consider the international jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 15 (1) (c) Brussels I given the case that the requirements didn’t remain until the filing of the action. The court stated that Art. 15 (1) (c) Brussels I didn’t require that the defendant directs his commercial or professional activities to the Member State where the consumer has his domicile at the moment the action is being filed. The wording of Art. 15 doesn’t state a requirement like the continuation of the targeted activity. Further, the rules regarding the special places of jurisdiction aim to ensure a high level of consumer protection. This protection would be refused if the consumer when filing the action was obliged to assure the continuation of the professional’s targeting towards the Member State where he has his domicile. Therefore, the judgment is correct.