EUPillar OLG Düsseldorf, 21.2.2008

Summary

The plaintiff brought an action for damages. The German defendant had booked a hotel room in Austria containing several services such as breakfast, dinner menu, use of a swimming pool, use of gym and others. The first instance court denied the international jurisdiction of German courts arguing that Austrian courts exclusively had international jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 22 no. 1 Brussels I. The Higher Regional Court contested this decision and stated that German courts had international jurisdiction according to Art. 16 (2), 15 Brussels I. The requirements of Art. 22 no. 1 weren’t fulfilled: A contract regarding the use of a hotel room plus several other services couldn’t be considered as a contract concerning tenancies of immovable property within the meaning of Art. 22. Given the fact that Art. 22 Brussels I provides a special place of jurisdiction a restrictive interpretation is generally appropriate. Art. 22 Brussels I aims to appoint the courts of the place where there are possible highly special rules on the rent of immovable property. In the present case the contract didn’t exclusively concern the rent of a hotel room but included numerous other performances. Therefore, the necessity of charging the courts where the property is situated wasn’t given. The judgment is correct.