EUPillar C-469/12 Krejci Lager & Umschlagbetriebs GmbH v Olbrich Transport und Logistik GmbH (Tenth Chamber)

Summary

This case concerning the interpretation of Art 5(1) of Brussels I was referred to the CJEU in Austrian proceedings between Krejci Lager (a company established in Vienna under Austrian law) and Olbrich Transport (a company established in Germany under German law) where the former sought payment of the storage fee of EUR 325 from the latter for goods stored on one of its sites located in Vienna. The first instance court declined international jurisdiction and dismissed the action by considering that the action concerned the performance of the contractual obligation at issue under Art 5(1)(a) of Brussels I. According to the court, that obligation included payment of the storage fee, which constitutes a money debt, must be classified as ‘obligations of dispatch’ under Austrian law and was payable at the debtor’s domicile in Germany. The decision was appealed against before the referring court which found Art 5(1)(a) was not applicable to the case on the ground that the storage contract was a contract for the provision of services and thus the place of performance of such a contract was the place where the service was provided under Art 5(1)(b). The defendant claimed that the storage contract did not involve a provision of services but making storage space available. The referring court, the court of last instance for this claim as its value was less than EUR 5 000, felt compelled to ask a question to the CJEU to interpret Art 5(1)’s applicability in this case. The CJEU considered that the reply to this question may be clearly deduced from existing case law or admits of no reasonable doubt and thus it decided to rule by reasoned order under Article 99 of its Rules of Procedure. Citing its decisions in C-204/08 Rehder and C-19/09 Wood Floor Solutions, the CJEU reaffirmed that the second indent of Art 5(1)(b) gives an autonomous definition of the place of performance of the obligations arising from contracts for the provision of services in order to reinforce the objectives of unifying the rules of jurisdiction and ensuring predictability. The CJEU found that the contract in question concerns the storage of goods and it clearly constitutes a ‘provision of services’: the predominant element of a storage contract is that “the warehousekeeper undertakes to store the goods concerned on behalf of the other party to the contract” and this “entails a specific activity, consisting, at the least, of the reception of goods, their storage in a safe place and their return to the other party to the contract in an appropriate state”. The CJEU observed that the contract in question does not concern the rental of premises, but the storage of goods and thus it constitutes a contract for the ‘provision of services’ under Art 5(1)(b). The CJEU also noted that jurisdiction relating to the contracts for rental of premises is governed by the exclusive jurisdiction rule in the matter of tenancies of immovable property under Art 22(1). In requesting this preliminary reference, the Austrian court considered that the answer to the question of interpretation of EU law was not so obvious that no room was left for reasonable doubt. However, this was indeed a straightforward case concerning a claim with a very low value. The case was dealt with by the CJEU in less than 13 months.