EUPillar C-297/14 Rüdiger Hobohm v Benedikt Kampik Ltd & Co. KG and Others (Fourth Chamber)

Summary

This case on Art 15(1)(c) of Brussels I, read in conjunction with Art 16(1), was referred to the CJEU in proceedings between Mr Hobohm (domiciled in Germany) and Benedikt Kampik, Mr Kampik and Mar Mediterraneo (established in Spain) concerning the repayment of sums of money made available to Mr Kampik by Mr Hobohm. Mr Kampik, pursuing his professional activities in Spain, acted as an intermediary between Mr Hobohm and Kampik Immobilien for an apartment purchase under a brokerage contract in Spain which was to be built by a German developer. The apartments were marketed in, inter alia, Germany by means of a prospectus written in German. The developer of the tourist complex, as vendor, and Mr and Mrs Hobohm, as buyers, entered into a sale contract for the apartment referred to in the brokerage contract. The Hobohms had paid some instalments of the purchase price, but the developer encountered financial difficulties affecting the construction’s completion. Upon Mr Kampik’s proposal to carry out the finishing work on their apartment, the Hobohms travelled to Spain, signed a notarised power of attorney conferring on Mr Kampik the task of safeguarding their interests in relation to the sale contract (‘the transaction-management contract’), and made further payments. Because of disagreements re the transaction-management contract following the developer’s insolvency, the Hobohms revoked the power of attorney and brought an action in Germany seeking reimbursement of the paid sum. The court dismissed the action as inadmissible on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the transaction-management contract could not be directly connected to the property-intermediary activity ‘directed’ by Mr Kampik ‘to’ Germany under Art 15(1)(c). At the appeal on a point of law, the referring court asked the CJEU the interpretation of directed activity in Art 15(1)(c). Citing C 375/13 Kolassa and the case-law cited therein in para 23, the CJEU reaffirmed that all three conditions of Art 15(1) must be fulfilled in determining jurisdiction. After finding that the first and second conditions were fulfilled, it examined whether the existence of a link between the brokerage contract and the transaction-management contract allows the conclusion that the transaction-management contract comes within the scope of the activity ‘directed to’ Germany by Mr Kampik and, if so, what the nature of such a link must be. Considering the objectives set out in Recitals 11, 13 and 15, the purpose of consumer protection stated in its relevant Brussels Convention case law, and the necessity to interpret Art 15 strictly as being a departure from the general rule in Art 2 and the special contract jurisdiction rule in Art 5(1), it found that Art 15(1)(c) may be applied to a contract such as the transaction-management contract at issue in the main proceedings in so far as it is closely linked to a contract such as the brokerage contract. Regarding the determination of the constituent elements of such a close link, it observed that following the developer’s insolvency it was not possible to achieve the economic objective of the brokerage contract, ie the effective enjoyment of the apartment purchased by the Hobohms. It thus found that even though there is no legal interdependence between the brokerage contract and the transaction-management contract, there is an economic link between those two contracts. It held that: “It is for the national court to determine whether the constituent elements of that link are present, in particular whether the parties to both of those contracts are identical in law or in fact, whether the economic objective of those contracts concerning the same specific subject-matter is identical and whether the second contract complements the first contract in that it seeks to make it possible for the economic objective of that first contract to be achieved.”