The parties argued on damage claims. It was doubtful whether German courts had international jurisdiction. The defendant claimed that German courts weren’t internationally competent because of an agreement on jurisdiction in favour of Luxembourg courts.
The court held that the agreement on jurisdiction wasn’t valid because the clause was placed below the contract’s text and below the parties’ signatures. It was formulated next to the defendant’s tax information and registration number.
The plaintiff didn’t have to expect information relevant to the contract subsequent to signatures and tax information about the defendant.
The judgment is correct. The Agreement on the point of a prorogation of jurisdiction must be clear. This can’t be assumed if the forum clause has been mentioned above the signatures. The party generally can’t be expected to take notice of the text’s relevance if it has been positioned next to tax information and the other party’s registration number.