On 7 October 2025, the Federal Court of Justice ("BGH") decided in case II ZR 112/24 on a fundamental question of international jurisdiction: whether Article 18(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012; "EuGVVO") continues to apply in legal proceedings against UK-based defendants after the Brexit transition period (Art. 126 Withdrawal Agreement). This decision addresses the complex interplay between EU law and the Withdrawal Agreement, establishing important precedents for cross-border consumer protection.
The underlying case involves a German plaintiff, a consumer, who subscribed to profit participation rights in a German public limited company (AG) in October 2007. Following corporate restructuring, the company was converted into a GmbH and merged with a London-based company (the defendant) on 31 December 2018. When informed of the merger in February 2019, the plaintiff terminated her participation without notice in May 2019 and demanded repayment of EUR 7,438.99.
After the defendant refused payment, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in November 2022 at the Regional Court of Munich I, which upheld the claim. However, the Higher Regional Court of Munich ("OLG Munich") overturned this judgment on 16 September 2024, dismissing the action for lack of international jurisdiction. The OLG Munich argued that the Brussels Ia Regulation was no longer applicable to the UK after Brexit, citing Article 67 (1a) and Article 126 of the Withdrawal Agreement.
Application of Brussels Ia Regulation
The BGH confirmed that the Brussels Ia Regulation remains applicable for determining international jurisdiction in cases involving UK defendants. The BGH emphasized that the UK's withdrawal from the EU does not automatically affect the Brussels Ia Regulation's applicability in EU Member States, particularly in the absence of explicit provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement excluding consumer protection mechanisms.
The BGH draws its reasoning from Article 216 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which allows the EU to conclude binding agreements with third countries. Since the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, the UK is considered a third country, but this status alone does not preclude the application of EU jurisdictional rules designed to protect consumers.
Consumer Status and Jurisdictional Requirements
The BGH analyzed why the plaintiff qualifies as a consumer under Article 18 (1) Brussels Ia Regulation. The BGH confirmed the established jurisprudence of the BGH and ECJ that investments in profit participation rights constitute consumer transactions when made for private wealth management rather than professional purposes. The BGH noted that the defendant's predecessor had clearly directed its commercial activities toward German consumers, satisfying the requirements for establishing jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation.
Relationship with Withdrawal Agreement
A key aspect of the BGH's judgment is the interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement. The BGH found that the Agreement does not contain explicit provisions excluding Article 18 Brussels Ia Regulation's application. The BGH reasoned that excluding consumer protection provisions would render many of the Agreement's jurisdictional rules largely meaningless and would place EU consumers in a disadvantageous position compared to their dealings with traders from other third countries.
The BGH applied the "acte clair" doctrine, determining that the correct interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement was so obvious that no reference to the ECJ was necessary under Article 267 TFEU.
Procedural Outcome and Significance
The BGH overturned the Higher Regional Court of Munich's decision and confirmed the international jurisdiction of German courts under Article 18 (1) Brussels Ia Regulation. However, rather than ruling on the merits, the court remanded the case to the Munich Higher Regional Court for further proceedings, as the lower court had not addressed the substantive issues raised in the defendant's appeal.
This decision aligns with recent jurisprudence from several German Higher Regional Courts (Frankfurt, Hamburg, Köln, Karlsruhe, Celle, and Stuttgart) and reflects academic commentary supporting the continued application of EU jurisdictional rules in post-Brexit scenarios.
Implications and Legal Context
The judgment has far-reaching implications for cross-border litigation involving UK parties. It strengthens legal certainty for EU consumers by ensuring that the special jurisdictional rules of Article 18(1) Brussels Ia Regulation remain available, even when dealing with UK-based traders. The decision underscores the continuing relevance of the Brussels Ia Regulation framework in determining competent courts for consumer matters, maintaining a level playing field for EU consumers regardless of whether they face defendants from within the EU or from the UK.
Looking ahead, an important question arises whether the principles outlined by the BGH will extend to B2B situations. While the BGH's reasoning was firmly grounded in consumer protection arguments the underlying interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement's relationship with the Brussels Ia Regulation could have broader application. The BGH's analysis that the Withdrawal Agreement does not contain explicit provisions excluding the Brussels Ia Regulation's jurisdictional rules may provide a foundation for similar arguments in commercial disputes. However, the absence of equivalent protective considerations in B2B contexts could lead courts to adopt a more restrictive approach, potentially limiting the judgment's impact to consumer cases.
The BGH's approach reflects a balanced interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement that preserves consumer protection rights while respecting the UK's new status as a third country, demonstrating how EU legal principles can continue to provide effective remedies in the post-Brexit legal landscape.
Dr Tobias Pörnbacher
