PIL instrument(s)
Brussels I
Case number and/or case name
OLG Saarbrücken, 18.10.2011 – 4 U 548/10
Details of the court
Germany, Second Instance
Articles referred to by the court
Brussels I
Article 23
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph a
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph b
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph c
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 5
Date of the judgement
17 October 2011
Appeal history
CJEU's case law cited by the court
Summary
The plaintiff brought an action for remuneration. She had made a contractual offer that was accepted by the defendant. The acceptance included a prorogation in favour of Luxembourg Courts. The Regional Court denied the international jurisdiction of German courts. The court held that a prorogation pursuant to Art. 23 (1) sentence 3 Brussels I could not be assumed if the main entrepreneur in his acceptance referred to the conditions of the main order which contained a prorogation. It is settled case law (see CJEU C-24/76) that a prorogation in general terms and conditions has to be explicitly mentioned in the document or alternatively in the offer and also in the acceptance. In the present case there was a reference to the general terms and conditions only in the acceptance of the contract. Therefore it seems correct to not assume a consensus on this point.

This website is written and maintained by the University of Aberdeen's Research Applications and Data Management Team