The plaintiff brought an action for payment concerning contractual obligations. The defendant contested the international jurisdiction of the German courts.
The first instance court denied the international jurisdiction of German courts. The Higher Regional Court affirmed this judgment. According to the court there was no international usage in terms of Art. 23 (1) (a) Brussels I that states that a jurisdiction clause in general conditions of sale was valid given the fact that there has been made a simple reference to this conditions if the conditions themselves hadn’t been transmitted at all or had been transmitted solely after the conclusion of the contract.
The court refers to the CJEU jurisdiction concerning the interpretation of jurisdiction clauses according to which Art. 23 Brussels I had to be interpreted restrictively. It stated that the formal requirements existed in order to guarantee that there has been an actual agreement between the parties. In the present case the court couldn’t verify that there has been such an agreement and therefore had to deny the international jurisdiction in accordance with the jurisdiction of the CJEU.