The parties argued on applications for an injunction. The applicant, a German company, claimed for omission of performing sport bets in Germany. The defendant had already brought an action for an injunction in Austria regarding the omission of sport bets in Austria by the applicant. The court had to consider whether the facts contained the ‘same cause of action’ within the meaning of Art. 27 Brussels I.
The court held that the same cause of action within the meaning of Art. 27 (1) Brussels I wasn’t given if one party applied for an injunction regarding the performance of sport bets by another party and if the second party had brought an action for an injunction in their state regarding also the omission of sport bets by the first party. In case of the existence of an alternative claim in the foreign proceedings that concerns the ‘same cause of action’ within the meaning of Art. 27 Brussels I the proceedings in the country where the second action has been brought have to be stayed if the principal motion had been dismissed.
The judgment is in accordance with settled case law and therefore is correct.