PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

BGH, 17.04.2013 – XII ZR 23/12

Details of the court

Germany, Third Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

16 April 2013

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The parties argued about maintenance claims. The plaintiff first had brought an action for maintenance and later had brought an action for information on the defendant’s financial situation. After the first action she had moved to Brasilia. It was doubtful whether both actions fell within the scope of application of Art. 5 no. 2 Brussels I. The court held that the procedure of bringing actions in two stages also fell within the meaning of Art. 5 no. 2 Brussels I. In accordance with the principle of perpetuatio fori the venue of Art. 5 no. 2 Brussels I also applied to the second action although the plaintiff at that point of time had established her domicile in Brasilia. The validity of the perpetuatio fori principle within the application of Brussels I is widely accepted. The plaintiff’s second action concerned ancillary claims that were raised in order to support the main claim. The CJEU stated that Art. 5 no. 2 has to be interpreted extensively (see De Cavel). It is in accord with the required wide interpretation to include those directly connected claims to the scope of application of Art. 5 no. 2 Brussels I.