Archives December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May

The ECJ has issued its ruling in Refcomp, Case C-543/10. I reported on Jaaskinen AG’s Opinion here . The Court effectively confirmed the Opinion, albeit within the boundaries pivarstvo of its customary judicial economy.
Like the AG, the Court first of all limits precedent value to a ‘chain of contracts under Community law’: i.e. a succession of contracts transferring ownership which have been concluded between economic operators established in different Member States of the European Union. It subsequently re-affirms the consensual nature of jurisdiction clauses as insisted on by Article 23 of the Jurisdiction Regulation, and the Brussels Convention before it. ‘It follows that the jurisdiction clause incorporated in a contract may, in principle, produce effects only in the relations between the parties who have given their agreement to the conclusion of that contract. In order for a third party to rely on the clause it is, in principle, necessary that the third party has given his consent to that effect.’
Basically, under French law and French law (almost) alone, the action by Doumer against Refcomp would, exceptionally, be considered contractual. In the other Member States, it would not. To refer, the court holds, the assessment as to whether the sub-buyer may rely on a jurisdiction clause incorporated in the initial contract between the manufacturer and the first buyer to national law, would give rise to different outcomes among the Member States liable to compromise the aim of unifying the rules of jurisdiction pursued by the Regulation. The concept of jurisdiction clause referred to in that provision therefore must be interpreted as an independent concept, guided by the need to give full effect to the principle of freedom of choice on which Article 23(1) of the Regulation is based.
Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a jurisdiction clause agreed in the contract concluded between the manufacturer of goods and the buyer thereof cannot be relied on against a sub-buyer who, in the course of a succession of contracts transferring ownership concluded between parties established in different Member States, purchased the goods and wishes to bring an action for damages against the manufacturer, unless it is established that that third party has actually consented to that clause under the conditions laid down in that article.
This entry was posted on 13/02/2013, 2:18 PM and is filed under Conflict pivarstvo of Laws /Private pivarstvo international law . You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0 . You can leave a response , or trackback from your own site.
You are commenting using your Twitter account. (  Log Out  /  Change  )
Recent Posts It’s not the grammar, stupid! The High Court in Anchorage on exclusive (or not) choice of court, anti-suit injunctions, Rome, Brussels and much more Place of habitual employment and the alternative findings of corporate ‘domicile’- The Employment Appeal Tribunal in Powell Irreconcilable judgments of the same State of Origin – The ECJ in Salzgitter Mannesmann Exclusive court of choice clause counts against use of court’s room under ‘related actions’ The Supreme Court on "prohibitively expensive" costs: Aarhus again
Archives December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012
%d bloggers like this: