Case number and/or case name
LG Darmstadt, 18.5.2004 – 8 O 143/03
Summary
The parties argued on damage claims resulting from a contract on option dealing. The plaintiff was a German consumer. The defendant was an American company that was running a business in Germany which almost had the identical name as the main office. It was doubtful whether German courts were internationally competent.
The court stated that German courts had international jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 16 (1), 15 (2) Brussels I. It held that Art. 15 (2), 16 (1) Brussels I applied to the case that an action was being brought against a foreign agent in securities if the business relation between the parties originally had been executed with an office in Germany that almost had the same name as the main office. This according to the court had to be assumed given the fact that the German office appeared to be a legally existent branch belonging to the main office of the United States in Germany.
The court’s interpretation promotes consumer protection. In the present case the consumer wasn’t able to identify the exact legal situation of the office he was confronted with in Germany. It was reasonable to assume that this office was a branch of the main office in the United States. It is unanimously accepted that the ostensible existence of a legal situation has to be considered within the rule of Art. 15 (2) Brussels I. Therefore, the judgment is correct.