Opinion of Advocate General Darmon delivered on 27 October 1992

1 Original language: French.

2 OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1.

3 See point III of the grounds of the decision of the Bundesgerichtshof.

4 Section I, point II.

5 The settlement of such conflicts is a matter solely for bilateral agreements even after the adoption of the Convention (see Articles 57 and 59 thereof).

6 Report of Professors Evrigenis and Kerameus on the accession of the Hellenic Republic to the Community Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1986 C 298, p. 1).

7 See O'Malley and Layton, European Civil Practice, No 19.05, and Gothot and Holleaux, La Convention de Bruxelles du 27 septembre 1968, éd. Jupiter, 1985, No 122.

8 See the national court's order, p. 6 of the English translation.

9 Judgment in Case 150/77 Bertrand v Ott [1978] ECR I-131, paragraphs 12 to 19; sec also Kropholler, Europaisches Zivil- prozessrecht, 1991, p. 149.

10 See Article 14 of the Convention: A consumer may bring proceedings ... Proceedings may be brought against a consumer.

11 See to this effect the German Government's reply to the Court's questions, p. 3 of the French translation.

12 Judgment in Bertrand v Ott, paragraph 21, cited above, my emphasis. For the reference see note 8.

13 Paragraph 22.

14 Cited above, for the reference see note 8.

15 Report by Professor Dr Peter Schlosser on the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Association of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and to the Protocol on its interpretation by the Court of Justice, point 153 (OJ 1979 C 59, p. 71).

16 See paragraph 7 and the third sentence of paragraph 8 of the judgment in Case 33/78 Somafer v Saar-Ferngas [1978] ECR 2183.

17 Case 14/76 De Bloos v Bouyer [1976] ECR 1497.

18 The Court treated establishments in the same way: ibid. paragraph 21.

19 Paragraph 20.

20 See also paragraph 12 of the judgment in Case 139/80 Blanckaert & Willems v Trost [1981] ECR 819.

21 Case 218/86 SAR Schotte v Parfums Rothschild [1987] ECR 4905.

22 For the reference see note 19.

23 Paragraph 13.

24 For the reference see note 15.

25 Paragraph 12, my emphasis.

26 See the wording of question 3.

27 See the Schlosser report, point 158.

28 Report by Mr P. Jenard on the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1979 C 59, p. 1, especially at p. 31, my emphasis).

29 The expression (rayon d'activité) is Mr Huet's, JDI, 1979, No 3, p. 681 (note to the judgment in Somafer).

30 Observations, pp. 17 and 22 of the French translation.

31 See to this effect Huet (same reference): (...) secondary establishments — such as factories or depots — which have no legal contact with the customers are not subsidiaries (...). Neither are secondary establishments which, although in relations with third parties, constitute simply a staging post of the parent company and act simply as a body forwarding customers' requests to the parent company where the business is in reality dealt with by the parent company.

32 Jenard report, p. 8; sec also the Schlosser report, cited above, point 21.

33 Droz, Competence judiciaire et effets des jugements dans le marché commun, Dalloz, 1972, point 30, mv emphasis.

34 Preamble to the Convention (OJ 1990 C 189, p. 2).

35 Mv emphasis.

36 Schlosser report, point 153.

37 Subject to the exclusion of transport contracts as provided for in the third paragraph of Article 13.

38 Opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (80/934/EEC) (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1).

39 Article 5(1) of the Rome Convention.

40 Report on the Convention on the Law applicable to Contractual Obligations (OJ 1980 C 282, p. 1).

41 Ibid., p. 23.

42 Observations of the respondent to the main proceedings, p. 11 of the French translation.

43 See Article 1(2) of the Rome Convention.

44 Observations of the respondent in the main proceedings, p. 11 of the French translation.

45 P. Schlosser, Sonderanknüpfungen von zwingendem Verbraucherschutzrecht und europaisches Prozessrecht, Festschrift fur Ernst Stemdorff 1990, p. 1383. See also the judgment of die Oberlandcsgericht Koln of 16 March 1989, ZIP, 13/89, p. 839.

46 See to this effect Kropholler, op. cit., p. 151.

47 See Schlosser report, point 158(b).

48 Ibid., point 158(b).

49 See to this effect Hartung, Termineinwand bei Warentermingeschäften an Auslandsbörsen, ZIP, 27 September 1992, Heft 18, p. 1192.

50 Case 34/82 Peters v ZNAV [1983] ECR 987.

51 Paragraphs 9 and 10.

52 Judgment in Case 9/87 SPRL Arcado v SA Haviland [1988]

53 Paragraphs 12 and 13.

54 Paragraph 15.

55 For the reference sec note 16.

56 Paragraph 16.

57 Sec Shearson Lehman's observations, p. 19 of the French translation.

58 Judgment in Case 189/87 Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schröder, Münchmeyer, Hengst & Co. [1988] ECR 5565.

59 Paragraph 18, my emphasis.

60 For the reference see note 49.

61 Judgment in Peters v ZNAV, cited above, paragraph 12.

62 Paragraphs 27 and 29, [1988] ECR 5573, at 5577.

63 See to this effect Kropholler, op. cit., p. 100: Denn für eine umfassende Zuständigkeit im Vertragsgerichtsstand spricht (im Unterschied zu der abgelehnten Erweiterung der deliktischen Zustandigkeit), dass in derartigen Fällen im allgemeinen das Vertragsverhältnis and nicht das Deliktsverhältnis prägend ist, so dass im Interesse der Prozessokonomie liegende gemeinsame Behandlung aller Ansprüche in diesem Gerichtsstand nicht nur praktisch, sondern auch sachgerecht erschiene.