Case number and/or case name
OLG Düsseldorf, 22.12.2005 – I-24 U 86/05
Details of the court
Germany, Second Instance
Articles referred to by the court
Brussels I
Article 5
Paragraph 1
SubParagraph b
Indent 1
Paragraph 1
SubParagraph b
Indent 2
Article 63
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 4
Article 66
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
SubParagraph a
Paragraph 2
SubParagraph b
Date of the judgement
21 December 2005
CJEU's case law cited by the court
Summary
The parties argued about the payment of the lawyer’s fee. The plaintiff was a lawyer domiciled Germany. The plaintiff was domiciled in Luxembourg. The plaintiff had made draft contracts for the defendant. These drafts were made in Luxembourg and then delivered to D. (Germany). The Regional Court dismissed the action because of lack of international jurisdiction.
The Higher Regional Court affirmed the first instance court’s judgment by denying that German courts were internationally competent. It held that Art. 5 no. 1 (b) Brussels I wasn’t applicable because the party being domiciled in Luxembourg in the present case had refused to submit to the jurisdiction of German courts. The final place of delivery within the meaning of Art. 63 (1) Brussels I was Luxembourg. The court further stated that it wasn’t relevant where the defendant received the outcome of the plaintiff’s performance but where the defendant according to the contract shall directly benefit from the performance. In the present case this was the creditor’s domicile Luxembourg.
The judgment is correct.