PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

BGH, 25.3.2015 – VIII ZR 125/14

Details of the court

Germany, Third Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

24 March 2015

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The parties argued about payment claims from delivery con-tracts. It was doubtful whether they had mutually agreed on a place of jurisdiction. The court stated that the parties had agreed on a place of jurisdiction within the meaning of Art. 23 Brussels I. It held that Art. 23 Brussels I didn’t extend to the question of representation within the agreement on jurisdiction. It further didn’t concern the treatment of any absences in intention re-garding the agreement and any lacks in representation. Fur-ther, the CISG didn’t state the requirements of the validity of forum clauses in purchase contracts even if they were gov-erned by the convention. It is unanimously accepted that Art. 23 Brussels I doesn’t concern issues of representation within the agreement on jurisdiction. These questions have to be answered by applying the autonomous PIL in this regard. Further, the requirements for a valid forum clause are exclusively stated by Art. 23 Brussels. Therefore, the judgment is also correct in the second regard.