PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

BGH, 24.10.2005 – II ZR 329/03

Details of the court

Germany, Third Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

23 October 2005

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The plaintiff brought an action for an injunction. He claimed that the defendant was obliged to omit using certain statements. The court had to examine whether the action fell within the scope of application of Art. 5 no. 3 Brussels I. The first instance court denied the international jurisdiction. The second instance court affirmed it. The Federal Court of Justice held that German courts were internationally competent. It stated that the action regarding the omission of imminent damages on property fell within the meaning of the term ‘matters relating to tort’ in Art. 5 no. 3 Brussels I. It wasn’t required that the damage had already occurred. The judgment in in accordance with the Regulation’s wording as well as with settled case law (also under the precedent Regulation). The judgment is correct.