PIL instrument(s)
Brussels I
Case number and/or case name
BGH, 7.1.2014 – VIII ZR 137/13
Details of the court
Germany, Third Instance
Articles referred to by the court
Brussels I
Article 23
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph a
Paragraph 2
Date of the judgement
06 January 2014
Appeal history
None
CJEU's case law cited by the court
24/76 Estasis Salotti di Colzani Aimo e Gianmario Colzani s.n.c. v Rüwa Polstereimaschinen GmbH [1976] ECR 01831
C-116/02 Erich Gasser GmbH v MISAT Srl [2003] ECR I-14693
C-159/97 Trasporti Castelletti Spedizioni Internazionali SpA v Hugo Trumpy SpA [1999] ECR I-01597
C-269/95 Francesco Benincasa v Dentalkit Srl [1997] ECR I-03767
Summary
The parties argued about the validity of a choice of forum agreement in favour of German courts. The Federal Court of Justice stated that the requirements regarding the electronic means within the meaning of Art 23 (2) Brussels I are fulfilled if the statement is visible, shows its author and is saved which permits its reproduction. The requirements discussed by the previous instance (electronic encryption or signature) cannot be derived from the provision’s wording. The court in this regard stated an acte clair.

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