The parties argued on damage claims. It was doubtful whether German courts had international jurisdiction.
The first instance court rejected the action because of a lack of international jurisdiction.
The Higher Regional Court contested the judgment and stated the international jurisdiction of German courts. It held that the venue of Art. 5 no. 1 Brussels I extended to all litigations resulting from contracts such as damages, claims regarding violations of the obligation to perform and violations of ancillary rights. It further stated that the place of performance regarding the obligation to give a power of attorney and to deliver the document conferring authority was the domicile of the recipient of the declaration.
The judgment is in accordance with the requirement of an autonomous extensive interpretation of the term ‘matters relating to a contract’ in Art. 5 no. 1 Brussels that has been stated by the CJEU in C-27/02 (Engler). The decision is correct.