PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

BGH, 19.2.2013 – VI ZR 45/12

Details of the court

Germany, Third Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

18 February 2013

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The parties argued about damage claims resulting from an insurance contract. The plaintiff was being sued in other proceedings in Belgium by another party involved in the car accident. It was doubtful whether German courts were obliged to stay proceedings pursuant to Art. 27 no. 1 Brussels I. The court held that the identity between the parties as required by Art. 27 Brussels I wasn’t given if the plaintiff being domiciled in Germany brought an action against the defendant and the former second defendant had brought an action against the plaintiff in another Member State. The judgment is correct. In general it is possible that different persons can be considered as one person within the meaning of Art. 27 as long as their interest regarding the matter in dispute is the same. In the present case the damage claims against the German plaintiff that had been brought up in Belgium didn’t concern the claims against the defendant in the German proceedings in any aspect. The proceedings in Belgium didn’t concern the defendant of the present proceeding and he wasn’t able to exercise any influence to the Belgium proceedings. Therefore it was correct to deny the identity between the parties within the meaning of Art. 27 Brussels I.