PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

BGH, 24.4.2013 – XII ZR 10/10

Details of the court

Germany, Third Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

23 April 2013

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The parties argued about damage claims from a contract regarding the rent of a caravan. The plaintiff was seated in Germany. He ran a website where he offered the renting of caravans. The defendant lived in the Netherlands. It was disputed whether German courts had the international jurisdiction. The contract on the rent contained a forum clause stating the international jurisdiction of German courts. According to this the first instance court had affirmed its international jurisdiction. The court contested the first instance court’s judgment and stated that German courts weren’t internationally competent. The agreement on the jurisdiction within the rental contract had no legal effect because it violated Art. 17 no. 1 Brussels I. The court held that the contract between the parties fell within the scope of application of Art. 15 et seq. Brussels I because it wasn’t required that the contract had been concluded at a distance. The court also found that it could be considered as depending on the question whether there had been causality between the website and the conclusion of the contract. The judgment is correct. It is in accord with the CJEU jurisdiction in C-190/11 (Mühlleitner) where the Court held that Art. 15 (1) (c) Brussels I must be interpreted as not requiring the contract between the consumer and the trader to be concluded at a distance [paragraph 46]. The second consideration given by the court can’t be considered correct given the subsequent CJEU jurisdiction in Emrek (C-218/12) where the Court stated that causality wasn’t required. However, in the present case this wasn’t relevant because the causality still was given.