The parties argued about repayment claims regarding the lawyer’s fee. It was doubtful whether German courts were internationally competent. The first instance court rejected the action because of a lack of international jurisdiction.
The Higher Regional Court contested the first instance court’s judgment by stating the international jurisdiction of German courts. It held that the place of performance within the meaning of Art. 5 was a Third State it was according to Art. 5 no. 1 (c) Brussels I necessary to solely apply Art. 5 no. 1 (a) Brussels I. Further, the court stated that according to the rule established by the CJEU in Tessili (C-12/76) the place of performance has to be determined among the law applicable to contracts that is determined by the private international law of the forum.
In the decision the court applied Art. 5 Brussels I correctly in accordance with settled case law. The judgment is correct.