Case number and/or case name
OLG Kalrsuhe, 24.8.2007 – 14 U 72/06
Details of the court
Germany, Second Instance
Articles referred to by the court
Brussels I
Article 5
Paragraph 1
SubParagraph b
Indent 1
Article 15
Paragraph 1
SubParagraph c
Date of the judgement
23 August 2007
CJEU's case law cited by the court
Summary
The German plaintiff brought an action for payment for the lawyer’s fee. The defendant lives in Spain.
The first instance court denied the international jurisdiction. The second instance contested this decision. It found that a German lawyer didn’t direct professional activities to another Member State within the meaning of Art. 15 (1) (c) Brussels I by informing about his activities on his website. The consumer’s venue in Art. 15 Brussels I required that there was an inner connection between the website and the commissioning by the client.
The CJEU stated in Emrek that there doesn’t have to be causality between the conclusion of the contract and the website’s content. The court states the necessity of an inner connection between the website and the conclusion of the contract but this criterion sounds very similar to the requirement of causality. Regarding this aspect the decision isn’t correct. Further, it is settled case law that the accessibility of a website per se isn’t sufficient to assume that professional activities are directed towards a certain country. In the present case the contract hadn’t been concluded via internet and the website simply informed about the lawyer’s activities. Therefore the court decided correctly to assume the international jurisdiction of German courts pursuant to Art. 5 (1) (b) Brussels I.