Last year, the ECJ ruled on the jurisdiction of an antitrust action. I wrote about the interpretation on this blog. A few weeks ago, the BGH ruled on the case and referred it back to the Higher Regional Court of Schleswig for a new decision. The full text of the decision was published yesterday.

Essentially, the BGH decision is based on the Court of Appeal’s objection that it lacked competence. Wikingerhof could therefore not bring its action in Germany. The case concerns antitrust claims of the hotel against the hotel booking platform It primarily complains about three points:

  • Promotion of discounts without his involvement
  • Restrictions on contact options between hotel and customer when an accommodation contract has been concluded via the platform
  • The search results ranking on the platform, depending on the amount of provision paid

These are claims under tort law, as the ECJ also stated in its interpretation of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The fact that they followed from conduct in connection with a concluded contract is of no significance for this, nor is its interpretation. The Senate rejected an agreement on the place of jurisdiction.

Dr. Sebastian Louven

Rechtsanwalt Sebastian LouvenSince 2016 I have been an attorney at law. I advise mainly on antitrust law and telecommunications law. Further focal points of my work are intellectual property law as well as distribution law and IT law.


Senden Sie mir regelmäßig mehr Informationen zu den Themen Kartell- & Telekommunikationsrecht. Mit dem Klick auf den Button „Register“ bestätige ich, dass ich die Hinweise auf die Datenschutzerklärung (u.a. den Einsatz des Dienstleisters MailChimp (Sitz USA) sowie der Erfolgsmessung) gelesen habe.


Please forward me frequently more information regarding competition and telecommunications law. By clicking on the button "Register" I confirm that I have read the information on the privacy policy (including the use of the service provider MailChimp (based in the USA) and the success measurement).