@article{Wagner2021,
  author    = {Wagner, Rolf},
  title     = {Gerichtliche Zust{\"a}ndigkeitsbestimmung bei Streitgenossenschaft mit EU-Auslandsbezug},
  series = {Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts},
  volume    = {41},
  journal   = {Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts},
  number    = {5},
  publisher = {Gieseking},
  address   = {Bielefeld},
  issn      = {0720-6585},
  pages     = {445 -- 450},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {The article discusses a court ruling of the Higher Regional Court of Hamm on jurisdiction concerning the "Diesel emission scandal". The plaintiff had his domicile in Bielefeld (Germany). He bought a car in Cologne (Germany) where the seller had his domicile. Later on, the plaintiff brought an action for damages and for a declaratory judgment against the seller, the importer of the car (domicile: Darmstadt, Germany) and the producer of the car (domicile: in the Czech Republic) before the District Court of Bielefeld. The plaintiff argued that the producer of the car had used illegal software to manipulate the results of the emissions tests. He based his claim on tort. Against the first defendant he also claimed his warranty rights. In order to sue all three defendants in one trial the plaintiff requested the District Court of Bielefeld to ask the Higher Regional Court of Hamm to determine jurisdiction. In its decision the Court in Hamm took into account Article 8 No. 1 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation and \S 36 I No. 3, II of the German Code of Civil Procedure.},
  language  = {de}
}