PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

OLG Rostock, 14.10.2005 – 8 U 84/04

Details of the court

Germany, Second Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

13 October 2005

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The parties argued about a claim allegedly resulting from a promise of financial benefit that has been made by the defendant using misleading advertisement. It was doubtful whether claims based on § 661 a BGB (German civil code, rule on the obligation of payment regarding the promise of financial benefit) fell within the scope of application Art. 15 Brussels I. The court held that the present action concerned a consumer contract within the meaning of Art. 15 Brussels I. Therefore German courts were competent for the claim resulting from § 661 a BGB. In the present case the consumer and the professional had concluded a contract after the promise of financial benefit had been delivered. Therefore Art. 15 Brussels I applied to the present case. This principle has been stated by the CJEU in C-96/00. The court correctly applied Art. 15 Brussels I and stated the place of performance in Germany. The judgment is correct.