The parties argued about the payment of a company pension. It was doubtful whether German courts were internationally competent pursuant to Art. 19 no. 1, 18 (2) Brussels I.
The court held that the existence of an agency, branch or other establishment (Art. 18 Brussels I) in the Member State where the employee is domiciled couldn’t be assumed if the company doesn’t conclude contracts in the name of the main company. In the present case it wasn’t sufficient that the company based in Germany had been named on the website of the main company which was based in the US.
The judgment is correct. The facts didn’t support the assumption of an agency, branch or other establishment within the meaning of Art. 18 Brussels I in Germany. Therefore it was correct do deny the international jurisdiction of German courts pursuant to Art. 19 no. 1, 18 (2) Brussels I.