Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered on 20 November 1991

1 Original language: Italian.

2 See judgment in Case 12/76 Tessili v Dunlop ECR 1485, paragraph 11.

3 See amongst other authorities judgments in Case 29/76 Eurocontrol v Lufttransportunternehmen GmbH & Co Kg [1976] ECR 1451; Case 21/76 Mines de Potasse d'Alsace v Fondation Reinwater [1976] ECR 1735; Case 139/80 Trost v Blanckaert & Willems PVBA [1981] ECR 819; Case 34/82 Martin Peters Bauunternehmen GmbH v Zuid Nederlandse Vereniging [1983] ECR 987.

4 Cited above at footnote 2.

5 Ibid, at paragraph 9.

6 Ibid, at paragraph 13.

7 Judgments in Case 24/76 Estasis Salotti v Ruwa [1976] ECR 1831, at paragraph 7, and Case 25/76 Segoura v Bonakdarian [1976] ECR 1851, at paragraph 6.

8 Ibid, at paragraphs 7 and 6 respectively.

9 Judgment in Case 201/82 Gerling Konzern Speziale Kreditversicherungs AG v Amministrazione del Tesoro dello Stato [1983] ECR 2503.

10 Judgment in Case 313/85 Iveco Fiat SpA v Van Hool NV [1986] ECR 3337 and the judgment in Case 221/84 Berghoefer Gmbh and Co KG v ASA [1985] ECR 2699.

11 Judgment in Case 24/76, cited above; judgment in Case 71/83 Tilly Russ [1984] ECR 2417, and the judgment in Case 313/85, cited above.

12 In addition to this part of the present proceedings, the argument refuted here was put forward by Thode, actually in a note on the order for reference before the Court (in Wirtschafts- und Bankrecht VH B.I., 1989, p. 1425). Taking the opposite view, that is to say tending essentially in the direction I have suggested, ana again commenting on this same order for reference, are Geimer in Entscheidung zum Wirtschaftsrecht, 1989, p. 855), who expressed the same opinion before the case before the Court arose (Geimer-Schütze, Internationale Urteilsanerkennung, Vol. I, Munich 1983, p. 696), and others (Kropholler, Europäisches Zivilprozeßrecht, Heidelberg 1987, p. 152). In favour of the validity of an arbitration clause in statutes, in the light of a provision on formal requirements for oppressive clauses analogous to Article 17, see Italian Court of Cassation, Judgment of 3 February 1968, No 353 in Giustizia Civile, 1968, p. 179.

13 See to that effect Geimer-Schütze, Internationale Urteilsanerkennung, loc. cit., p. 940.

14 Ibid, at paragraphs 24 and 25.

15 In Belgium (exclusive) jurisdiction is conferred on the court competent for the principal office or the main establishment (Article 628 of the Judicial Code); in Denmark Article 238 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the concurrent jurisdiction of the court of the place in which the registered office is situated, as does Germany in Article 22 of the Zivilprozessordnung; and the same may be said of Luxembourg (Article 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure) and of the Netherlands (Article 126 of the Code of Civil Procedure); in Italy the general jurisdiction rule applies to companies (Article 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure) and to cases between shareholders (Article 23).

16 See to this effect the interesting remarks made by Carbone) la disciplina communitaria della proroga della giurisdizione in materia civile e commerciale, in Diritto del Commercio Intemazionale, 1989, p. 351 et seq., particularly at pp. 356 et seq.; and also, by the same author, Area dell'economie communitaria e clausole di deroga alla giurisdizione contenute in polizze di carico, in Diritto marittimo, 1977, p. 169 et seq., in particular p. 181.

17 On this point see Kohler, Rigueur et souplesse en droit international privé: Les formes possibles pour une convention de juridiction dans le commerce international par l'article 17 de la Convention de Bruxelles dans sa nouvelle redaction, in Diritto del Commercio Internazionale, 1990, pp. 611 et seq. The author rightly emphasizes that the relaxation of the formal requirements effected by the new wording of Article 17 entailing a necessary relaxation of the same conditions with regard to the establishment of consensus, can be justified only by the possibility of substantive review of clauses conferring jurisdiction. Whilst stating that national law, particularly the common law systems, have always permitted their courts to perform such a review, not only in order to protect parties in a weak bargaining position, but also in areas in which professionals carry on their business on the basis of established conditions', the author is nevertheless of the opinion that such review is not possible on the basis of the current wording of Article 17, and therefore stands in need of amendment.