Facts
B.X. and A.X. (Defendants; Appellants) are the owners of a property in C./GR, but are domiciled in D./SZ. In 2005, they commissioned the architect Y. (Plaintiff, Respondent) to renovate the old building on their property in C. The Plaintiff performed various architectural services and hired contractors who began the construction work in early November 2005. On November 13, 2005, the Defendants instructed the Plaintiff to stop the construction work. They terminated the cooperation with the Plaintiff on January 20, 2006, upon which the Plaintiff issued his final invoice on January 31, 2006, which was disputed by the Defendants.
On March 28, 2006, the Plaintiff reported his claim against the Defendants to the District Office of Bergün for mediation and, on May 29, 2006, filed a claim with the District Court of Albula, requesting that the Defendants be ordered to pay CHF 52,414.65 plus 5% interest since January 25, 2006. The Defendants disputed the local jurisdiction of the District Court of Albula.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court upholds the appeal of the Defendants. It states that for purely obligatory claims without any in rem connection to the property, the optional place of jurisdiction at the location of the land register under Art. 19 para. 1 lit. c of the Federal Act on Jurisdiction in Civil Matters (GestG) is not available. The Plaintiff's claim does not have any in rem connection to the property, but is based solely on the contractual agreement with the Defendants. The fact that the architectural services are related to a property owned by the Defendants is not sufficient to establish the optional place of jurisdiction at the location of the land register.
The Federal Supreme Court further states…