PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

OLG Bamberg, 24.4.2013 – 3 U 198/12

Details of the court

Germany, Second Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

23 April 2013

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The parties argued about a negative declaratory action stating that a framework contract on their delivery relation didn’t exist. It was doubtful whether German courts were internationally competent pursuant to Art. 23 Brussels I. The parties had concluded several purchase contracts containing general terms and conditions with a jurisdiction clause in favour of German courts. The court had to examine whether the delivery of the merchant by the manufacturer had evolved to a distribution agreement. The court held that a jurisdiction clause stated in a number of different purchase contracts wasn’t valid for the examination of the issue whether the delivery relation between the parties had become a distribution agreement. The agreement on jurisdiction that had been made in purchase contracts couldn’t be extended to the question whether the whole relation had gotten a certain legal character. This would be opposed by legal security. The several purchase contracts couldn’t show clear enough that a dispute regarding the existence of a framework contract should also fall within the venue that had been established there. The judgment is correct. The CJEU stated in C-214/89 that the requirement of a clear determination of the disputes that may arise mustn’t be interpreted too strictly. The court’s interpretation however can’t be considered as a too restrictive interpretation: the validity of jurisdiction agreements should extend to disputes that are based in the contract they have been concluded for. The declaratory action however concerned the whole delivery relation between the parties. The CJEU also held that it is to be avoided that the venue agreed on by the parties extends to every dispute that may arise between them (C-214/89, paragraph 31). Therefore the court’s interpretation stays in accord with settled case law.