Case number and/or case name
BGH, 16.10.2015 – V ZR 120/14
Summary
The parties argued about damage claims concerning a property purchase. The claimant purchased a property from the defendant. The defendant allegedly had not told him about the fact that the neighbor had agreed with the defendant’s father that the neighbor was allowed to use a part of the property in order to put up a building there - and that the defendant knew about these circumstances. The claimant considered this as a wilful deceit by the defendant.
The court stated that according to the CJEU case law Art 5 (1) (a) Brussels I did not establish a uniform venue for every obligation resulting from a contract. Therefore, one contract could lead to several places of jurisdiction in view of several primary contractual obligations. The court held that this does not mean that there have to be different venues for the primary obligation and the secondary obligation which was derived from the primary obligation’s violation. The venue of these claims has to be determined according to the place where the primary obligation they are derived from would have to be fulfilled. The venue therefore was derived from the primary obligation to transfer the property to the claimant.
The judgment is correct as the differing assessment of primary and secondary claims resulting from contracts would lead to inconsistencies. Another issue consisted in the classification of the culpa in contrahendo. It is still not entirely clear if it falls under Art 5 no. 1 or no. 3 Brussels I. The Court was able to leave the question unanswered due to the lack of differing results. The question did not have decisive influence on the decision; therefore a preliminary reference to the CJEU was not necessary. The issue still needs to be clarified by the CJEU.