Berlin Higher Regional Court emphasizes the limits of the international jurisdiction of German courts in civil proceedings
On August 14, 2025, the Berlin Higher Regional Court (Case No. 10 U 104/24) dismissed an appeal against X due to the lack of international jurisdiction of German courts. The judgment underscores the strict requirements under which German courts of first instance can be seised in cross-border cases and particularly highlights the significance of jurisdictional rules under EU and international law.
Subject Matter of the Proceedings and Grounds for the Decision
In the underlying civil proceedings, the plaintiff sought to invoke German jurisdiction in connection with claims arising from a contract with a foreign element. The defendant X had relied from the outset on the lack of international jurisdiction of the German courts.
In its decision, the Higher Regional Court conducted a detailed examination of the relevant provisions of the Brussels Ia Regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012) as well as national rules on international and local jurisdiction. After a thorough legal assessment, the court concluded that there were no sufficient connecting factors to establish international jurisdiction within the meaning of Art. 4, Art. 7 Brussels Ia Regulation or corresponding national regulations. In particular, the center of the disputed legal relationship was not located in Germany, so that, even considering other factors, no German court was competent to decide the case.
Explanation of the Brussels Ia Regulation and its Relevance
Scope of Application
The Brussels Ia Regulation governs the jurisdiction of courts in civil and commercial disputes between parties residing or habitually resident in different EU Member States. To establish jurisdiction under Art. 7 Brussels Ia Regulation, a special place of jurisdiction, such as the place of performance of the disputed obligation, must be given.
Relevant Criteria for Establishing Jurisdiction
In its reasoning, the Higher Regional Court stated that the plaintiff had not presented any facts that would justify jurisdiction under these special places of jurisdiction or a jurisdiction agreement. The general place of jurisdiction of the defendant in accordance with Art. 4 Brussels Ia Regulation was abroad and could not be circumvented by the plaintiff by way of exceptions or contractual agreements.
Significance of the Decision for Cross-Border Legal Disputes
The decision of the Berlin Higher Regional Court serves as a strong reminder to litigants to thoroughly examine the issue of international jurisdiction at an early stage in civil proceedings. If there is insufficient domestic connection—be it through registered office, branch, or place of performance of an obligation in Germany—a legal dispute risks failing at the so-called ‘justice gateway’ of international jurisdiction before the substantive review even begins.
Procedural Consequences and Legal Remedies
If the international jurisdiction of German courts is denied, plaintiffs are left only with the option of asserting their claims in the country of the defendant’s domicile or, in some cases, before a court specified by a contractual jurisdiction agreement. The denial of jurisdiction is not a substantive ruling on the merits of the claim, but a formal determination. Furthermore, in all subsequent steps—such as those relating to enforcement—it must be considered in which country recognition and enforcement of a judgment is possible or required.
Conclusion and Outlook
The judgment of the Berlin Higher Regional Court underscores the importance of thoroughly analyzing questions of international jurisdiction in cross-border commercial disputes. In addition to the requirements of European civil procedure law, national jurisdiction rules must always be considered. Especially for companies with interests or business relationships in multiple countries, a comprehensive analysis of potential forums is essential.
Note: This summary is based on the information published in the source (https://urteile.news/KG-Berlin10-U-10424Kammergericht-weist-Berufung-gegen-X-wegen-internationaler-Unzustaendigkeit-deutscher-Gerichte-zurueck~N35303). This was a past proceeding; all descriptions are made with due respect for the presumption of innocence where personal data is concerned.
For further questions regarding jurisdiction in international legal disputes, the attorneys at MTR Legal Rechtsanwalt are available to assist you with their experience.
