Case number and/or case name
OLG Naumburg, 21.6.2013 – 10 U 49/12
Details of the court
Germany, Second Instance
Articles referred to by the court
Brussels I
Article 5
Paragraph 1
SubParagraph a
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 5
Article 60
Paragraph 1
SubParagraph a
Date of the judgement
20 June 2013
CJEU's case law cited by the court
Summary
The parties argued about claims regarding the repayment of a loan which the plaintiff had granted to the defendant. The defendant was an estate agent who was registered in the German commercial register but domiciled in Poland. It was doubtful whether the international jurisdiction of German courts could be based on Art. 5 no. 5, 60 Brussels I.
First the court held that in order to establish a domicile within the meaning of Art. 59 (1) Brussels I in connection with national law it wasn’t sufficient that the person’s registered address was in Germany. It was however relevant if the person’s centre of interest was in Germany. The court further held that the registration in the German commercial register wasn’t sufficient to assume the existence of an agency or branch within the meaning of Art. 60 Brussels I. Art. 60 required a financial entity that had legal capacity.
An estate agent in general acts independently and doesn’t receive instructions. His position can be compared to a commercial agent’s activity. In this regard the CJEU stated (C-139/80) that that activity wasn’t sufficient to assume a branch or agency within the meaning of Art. 5 no. 5 Brussels I. The same should be valid for the estate agent. Therefore the judgment is correct.