The parties argued about payment claims from an architectural contract. The plaintiff is an architect working in Germany. The defendant is domiciled in France. The parties have concluded a contract regarding the building of a house in France. German courts had to examine their international jurisdiction.
The first instance court denied the international jurisdiction. The Federal Court of Justice contested this decision and held that a contract for work and services concluded with a consumer didn’t fall within the scope of application of Art. 15 (1) (c) Brussels I if the professional had carried out his performance in the Member State where the consumer was domiciled solely because of the concluded contract’s content. This fact didn’t fall within the meaning of the term ‘pursues commercial or professional activities in the Member State of the consumer’s domicile’ in Art. 15 (1) (c) Brussels I.
In the present case however the parties had made a valid agreement on the jurisdiction of German courts. German courts therefore were internationally competent.
It is settled case law that Art. 15 (1) (c) requires that the professional’s activity had been directed towards the consumer’s Member State before the contract was concluded between the parties. Therefore the decision is correct.