PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

LG Trier, 8.1.2004 – 7 HK.O 134/03

Details of the court

Germany, First Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

07 January 2004

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The parties argued about the international jurisdiction of German courts. The court held that there wasn’t a valid agreement on jurisdiction within the meaning of Art. 23 (1) (a), 63 (2) Brussels I if the contract had been concluded without an explicit reference to general terms and conditions. It wasn’t sufficient that solely the accounts delivered afterwards contained this reference. Further, an agreement on the place of performance within the meaning of Art. 5 (1) Brussels I wasn’t legally effective if it didn’t aim to establish an actual place of performance but if it had been made solely to determine a certain place of jurisdiction by avoiding to fulfill the formal requirements stated in the Regulation (‘abstract agreement on the place of performance’). The first statement regarding the reference to general terms and conditions is correct: it is required that there can be stated an actual consensus between the parties. This however can’t be assumed if there has solely been a reference to general terms and conditions in the accounts. It is also correct that it is not acceptable to establish a place of performance in order to avoid the requirements that have to be respected in order to establish a certain place of jurisdiction. The judgment is correct.