Judgment in Case C-543/10 Refcomp SpA v Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance copeland scroll SA, Axa France IARD, Emerson Network and Climaveneta SpA EU Laws
In the context of successive contracts concluded between parties established in different Member States, a jurisdiction clause incorporated in a contract for sale between the manufacturer copeland scroll and the buyer of goods cannot be relied on by a sub-buyer of those goods, unless he has agreed to that clause
The copeland scroll Court recalls that it is for the national court hearing the case to examine whether copeland scroll the parties have in fact agreed to the jurisdiction clause, because the verification as to whether the parties concerned have really consented is one of the objectives pursued by the regulation. The Court concludes that the jurisdiction clause incorporated in a contract copeland scroll may produce effects only in the relations between the parties which have agreed to conclude that contract. It follows that that clause may be relied on against a third party only if the latter has in fact consented to it. Therefore, in so far as the Court has already held, in the context of the regulation, that the sub-buyer copeland scroll and the manufacturer cannot be regarded as being united by a contractual link3, it must be concluded that they cannot be regarded, within the meaning of the regulation, as having agreed to the court designated as having copeland scroll jurisdiction in the initial contract concluded between the manufacturer and the first buyer. That interpretation of the regulation, which does not refer to the national legal systems, copeland scroll thereby avoids different solutions arising in the Member States which would be likely to compromise the objective of unifying the rules of jurisdiction pursued by the regulation. Such a reference to national copeland scroll law would also be an element of uncertainty copeland scroll incompatible with the concern to ensure the foreseeability of jurisdiction which is one of the objectives of the regulation. Accordingly, the Court s answer is that the regulation must be interpreted as meaning that a jurisdiction clause in a contract for sale concluded between the manufacturer of goods and the initial buyer, may only be relied on against a third party sub-buyer who, at the end of a succession of contracts transferring ownership concluded between the parties established in different Member States, has purchased those goods and wishes to bring an action for damages against the manufacturer, unless it is established that that third party has given his consent to that clause. 1 Council copeland scroll Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction copeland scroll and the recognition and enforcement of judgments copeland scroll in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12). It replaces the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36).
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Recent Comments Daniel Beaulieu on Advocate General s Opinion in Joined Cases C-71/11 and C-99/11 Bundesrepublik copeland scroll Deutschland copeland scroll v Y and Z jesusltynn.tumblr.com copeland scroll on Advocate General s Opinion in Joined Cases C-473/10, C-483/10, C-555/10, C-556/10 and C-557/10 Commission v Hungary, Kingdom of Spain, copeland scroll Republic of Austria, Federal Republic of Germany copeland scroll and Portuguese Republic Europeans Rule Reliance On National Courts And Lawyers Not A Bar To EU Antitrust Liability-- Antitrust Today – An Antitrust Law Blog By Constantine Cannon on Judgment in Case C-681/11 copeland scroll Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde, Bundeskartellanwalt v Schenker & Co. and Others Nico P. on Judgment in Case C-40/11 Yoshikazu Iida v Stadt Ulm GS test demo on Member states squabble over seat of EU patent tribunal Tags
Pages copeland scroll About Us Useful Links Blogroll copeland scroll AB Hukuku Twitter Twitter—Ilke Gocmen Twitter—Latif Aran Archives September 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 February 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October copeland scroll 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011
In the context of successive contracts concluded between parties established in different Member States, a jurisdiction clause incorporated in a contract for sale between the manufacturer copeland scroll and the buyer of goods cannot be relied on by a sub-buyer of those goods, unless he has agreed to that clause
The copeland scroll Court recalls that it is for the national court hearing the case to examine whether copeland scroll the parties have in fact agreed to the jurisdiction clause, because the verification as to whether the parties concerned have really consented is one of the objectives pursued by the regulation. The Court concludes that the jurisdiction clause incorporated in a contract copeland scroll may produce effects only in the relations between the parties which have agreed to conclude that contract. It follows that that clause may be relied on against a third party only if the latter has in fact consented to it. Therefore, in so far as the Court has already held, in the context of the regulation, that the sub-buyer copeland scroll and the manufacturer cannot be regarded as being united by a contractual link3, it must be concluded that they cannot be regarded, within the meaning of the regulation, as having agreed to the court designated as having copeland scroll jurisdiction in the initial contract concluded between the manufacturer and the first buyer. That interpretation of the regulation, which does not refer to the national legal systems, copeland scroll thereby avoids different solutions arising in the Member States which would be likely to compromise the objective of unifying the rules of jurisdiction pursued by the regulation. Such a reference to national copeland scroll law would also be an element of uncertainty copeland scroll incompatible with the concern to ensure the foreseeability of jurisdiction which is one of the objectives of the regulation. Accordingly, the Court s answer is that the regulation must be interpreted as meaning that a jurisdiction clause in a contract for sale concluded between the manufacturer of goods and the initial buyer, may only be relied on against a third party sub-buyer who, at the end of a succession of contracts transferring ownership concluded between the parties established in different Member States, has purchased those goods and wishes to bring an action for damages against the manufacturer, unless it is established that that third party has given his consent to that clause. 1 Council copeland scroll Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction copeland scroll and the recognition and enforcement of judgments copeland scroll in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12). It replaces the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36).
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Recent Comments Daniel Beaulieu on Advocate General s Opinion in Joined Cases C-71/11 and C-99/11 Bundesrepublik copeland scroll Deutschland copeland scroll v Y and Z jesusltynn.tumblr.com copeland scroll on Advocate General s Opinion in Joined Cases C-473/10, C-483/10, C-555/10, C-556/10 and C-557/10 Commission v Hungary, Kingdom of Spain, copeland scroll Republic of Austria, Federal Republic of Germany copeland scroll and Portuguese Republic Europeans Rule Reliance On National Courts And Lawyers Not A Bar To EU Antitrust Liability-- Antitrust Today – An Antitrust Law Blog By Constantine Cannon on Judgment in Case C-681/11 copeland scroll Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde, Bundeskartellanwalt v Schenker & Co. and Others Nico P. on Judgment in Case C-40/11 Yoshikazu Iida v Stadt Ulm GS test demo on Member states squabble over seat of EU patent tribunal Tags
Pages copeland scroll About Us Useful Links Blogroll copeland scroll AB Hukuku Twitter Twitter—Ilke Gocmen Twitter—Latif Aran Archives September 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 February 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October copeland scroll 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment