The parties argued about a negative declaratory action. They had concluded a jurisdiction agreement in favour of English courts. It was doubtful whether German courts were internationally competent.
The court held that German courts weren’t internationally competent because the jurisdiction agreement was valid. The court stated that there wasn’t a general unwritten examination of fraud or abuse according to European law that would apply to jurisdiction agreements within the meaning of Art. 23 Brussels I. Jurisdiction agreements therefore weren’t to be examined in terms of violation of morality in the main contract. The requirements of Art. 23 Brussels I were exhaustive.
The judgment is in accordance with the principle stated by the CJEU in C-159/97 and therefore is correct. Art. 23 Brussels exhaustively rules the validity of jurisdiction agreements within its scope of application. This interpretation promotes legal security.