Opinion of Advocate General Lenz delivered on 8 March 1994
1 Original language: German.
2 United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 834, p. 7.
3 OJ 1979 C 59, p. 1, penultimate paragraph of the right-hand column on p. 22.
4 Jenard Report, pp. 23 and 24 (see preceding footnote).
5 Judgment in Case 12/76 Tessili v Dunlop [1976] ECR 1473.
6 Paragraph 13.
7 Opinion in Case 34/82 Peters v ZNAV [1983] ECR 1005, at 1010.
8 For example, Schack, Der Erfüllungsort im deutschen, ausländischen und internationalen Privat- und Zivilprozeßrecht, Frankfurt, 1985, section 144 et seq. and at 207 and 218; Spellenberg, Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts, 1981, p. 75, at p. 76 et seq.
9 See also Geimer, Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts, 1986, p. 85, at p. 87.
10 See that which is stated in the Jenard Report (in the penultimate paragraph on p. 23; the report is cited in footnote 2) with regard to the question of the courts for the place where the obligation arose.
11 See the judgment in Case C-26/91 Handte [1992] ECR I-3967, paragraphs 11, 12 and 13.
12 See Schack, loc. cit., sections 146 and 353.
13 Cf. the following judgments relating to facts which took place before the Convention was amended by the San Sebastian Convention (OJ 1989 L 285): Case 133/81 Ivenel v Schwab [1982] ECR 1891, paragraph 16, Case 32/88 Six Constructions v Humbert [1989] ECR 341, paragraph 14 in conjunction with paragraph 13, and Case C-125/92 Mulox v Geels [1993] ECR I-4075, paragraph 18.
14 Geimer/Schütze, Internationale Urteilsanerkennung, Vol. I, Part I, Munich, 1983, p. 553.
15 German law, which distinguishes between questions relating to the place of performance and questions relating to which party is to bear the risk, is an exception in this respect: see Article 270 of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Civil Code), especially Paragraph 4.
16 Schack, loc. cit. (footnote 7), section 10.
17 Dölle, Kommentar zum Einheitlichen Kaufrecht, Munich, 1976, Article 59, section 7.
18 See the judgment in Case C-220/88 Dumez France and Tracoba [1990] ECR I-49, paragraph 16.
19 Judgment in Case C-89/91 Shearson Lehman Hutton [1993] ECR I-139, paragraph 17.
20 Sec footnote 18.
21 See footnote 17.
22 Cf. also the judgments in Case 189/87 Kalfelis v Schröder [1988] ECR 5565, paragraphs 8 and 9, and in Six Constructions, cited in footnote 12, paragraph 18.
23 National court's order, p. 14, my emphasis.
24 Judgment in Case 14/76 De Bloos v Bouyer [1976] ECR 1497.
25 Judgment in Tessili v Dunlop, cited in footnote 4.
26 Judgment in De Bloos v Bouyer, paragraph 13.
27 Judgment in De Bloos v Bouyer, paragraph 10.
28 Paragraphs 14 and 15.
29 Opinion of Advocate General Reischl in De Bloos v Bouyer [1976] ECR 1512, at 1518.
30 Operative part of the judgment in Tessili v Dunlop.
31 Judgment in Tessili v Dunlop, paragraph 11.
32 See the preceding footnote.
33 See the summary in the judgment in Mulox, cited in footnote 12, at paragraph 11.
34 See the preamble to the Convention and Tessili v Dunlop, cited in footnote 4, paragraph 9.
35 Judgments in Case 29/76 LTU v Eurocontrol [1976] ECR 1541, paragraph 3, in Case 34/82 Peters v ZNAV [1983] ECR 987, paragraph 9, in Case 9/87 Arcado v Haviland [1988] ECR 1539, paragraph 10, and in Kalfelis v Schröder, cited above, paragraph 15; see similarly: Case 150/77 Bertrand v Ott [1978] ECR 1431, paragraphs 14, 15 and 16, Handte, cited in footnote 10, paragraph 10, and Shearson Lehman Hutton, cited in footnote 18, paragraph 13.
36 As regards Article 5(1), see section 38, supra, and footnote 24 and the judgments in Ivanel v Schwab, cited above, paragraphs 18 and 19, in Case 38/81 Effer v Kantner [1982] ECR 825, paragraph 6, and in Case 266/85 Shenavai v Kreischer [1987] ECR 239, paragraph 8. See, in addition, the judgments in Case 23/78 Meeth v CUcetal [1978] ECR 2133, paragraph 8, and in Case 48/84 Spitzley v Sommer Exploitation [1985] ECR 787, paragraphs 16 to 21.
37 See the judgment in Handte, cited in footnote 10, paragraph 18. Cf. also the judgment of 20 January 1994 in Case C-129/92 Owens Bank v Bracco [1994] ECR I-117, paragraph 32, which mentions the principle of legal certainty in this connection.
38 A very marked preference was expressed for example in paragraph 13 of the judgment in Shearson Lehman Hutton, cited in footnote 18.
39 See paragraph 10 of the judgment in Mulox, cited in footnote 12, where it is stated that, so far as is possible, the Court comes down in favour of an independent interpretation of the concepts used in the Convention.
40 See section 15, supra.
41 Opinion in Case 12/76 Tessili v Dunlop [1976] ECR 1487.
42 See in particular section IV at 1489 and the second paragraph at 1491, in which the Advocate General sets out his view of the problem arising in the case.
43 See the Opinion, at 1495.
44 Judgment in Tessili v Dunlop, paragraph 14.
45 See section 39, supra.
46 See section 48, supra.
47 See footnote 12.
48 See section 41, supra.
49 Paragraph 15.
50 Paragraph 19.
51 The Court refers in this connection to the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1.
52 Paragraph 16. See also section 20, supra.
53 Cf. sections 38 and 39, supra.
54 Paragraph 18 of the judgment in Ivenel v Schwab.
55 Cited in footnote 35.
56 See the critical comments of Advocate General Mancini in Shenavai v Kreischer [1987] ECR 246, at 249, and of Advocate General Jacobs in Mulox, cited in footnote 12, sections 26 to 29.
57 Paragraph 16 of the judgment in Shenavai v Kreischer.
58 See footnote 13.
59 Cf. also the Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Mulox, section 21 in fine.
60 In this connection, it is significant that the 1982 judgment delivered by the Cour d'Appel (Court of Appeal), Metz, following the judgment in Ivenel v Schwab (Bull. Civ. 1982, V, p. 304) coincides precisely with the criteria set out by the Court of Justice in 1993 in the judgment in Mulox.
61 See section 22 et seq., supra.
62 Against the latter alternative, see Gothot-Holleaux, La convention de Bruxelles du 27 septembre 1968, Paris, 1985, p. 41. See also Droz, Compétence judiciaire et effets des jugements dans le Marché commun, Paris, 1972, p. 128 et seq. (section 206).
63 See the Opinion of Advocate General Mayras in Tessili v Dunlop (cited in footnote 40) [1976] ECR 1495.
64 Judgment in De Bloos v Bouyer (cited in footnote 23), paragraph 17 in fine, my emphasis.
65 Footnote 54.
66 Shenavai v Kreischer, paragraph 16.
67 It should be observed in passing that a number of writers even ask that Article 5(1) of the Convention should be eliminated: See for example Lasok/Stone, Conflicts of Laws in the European Community, 1987, p. 220 et seq.
68 My emphasis.
69 Judgment in Case 56/79 Zelger v Salinitri [1980] ECR 89.
70 See paragraph 3, in fine, of the judgment.
71 See section 63, supra.
72 Spellenberg, Zeitschrift für Zivilprozeß 91 [1978], p. 38 and bottom of p. 56, rightly points out that, in such a case, the court for the place where the contract was concluded would be the most appropriate court, but that the Convention does not provide for that solution.
73 Cf. the observations of the German Government in Shenavai v Kreischer (see section 69, supra) ; Spellenberg, loc. cit. (preceding footnote).
74 See section 64 supra.
75 Published in Monatsschrift für Deutsches Recht, 1992, p. 78.
76 See section 27, supra.
77 OJ 1979 C 59, p. 124 (section 179).
78 Judgment in Case 25/76 Segoura v Bonakdarian [1976] ECR 1851.
79 Judgment in Segoura, cited above, paragraphs 8 and 10.
80 Second paragraph of the operative part.
81 Order for reference, p. 17.
82 Session 1976-77, 45th Report, section 20.
83 See the Jenard Report (cited in footnote 2), p. 37.
84 The Lugano Convention (OJ 1988 L 319, p. 1), which is not applicable to these proceedings, and the San Sebastian version of the Brussels Convention (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 4) seem to support this. In those two conventions, the criterion in international trade and commerce has been retained, but a new condition has been laid down, namely that the usage must have been one of which the parties are or ought to have been aware and which in such trade or commerce is widely known ... and regularly observed.
85 Loc. cit. (footnote 76), p. 125 (section 179).
86 See the judgment in Segoura, paragraph 6.
87 See the second paragraph of the operative part of the judgment in Segoura.
88 See footnote 82 and the passage cited therein.
89 Judgments in Case 24/76 Estatis Salotti v RÜWA [1976] ECR 1831, paragraph 7, in Segoura, paragraph 6, in Case 784/79 Porta-Leasing v Prestige International [1980] ECR 1517, paragraph 5, in Case 201/82 Cerling v Amministrazione del Tesoro dello Stato [1983] ECR 2503, paragraph 13, in Case 71/83 Tilly Russ v Nova [1984] ECR 2417, paragraph 14, in Case 221/84 Berghoefer v ASA [1985] ECR 2699, paragraph 13, and in Case 73/85 Iveco Fiat v Van Hool [1986] ECR 3337, paragraph 5.
90 Judgment of 10 March 1992 In Case 214/89 Powell Duffryn [1992] ECR 1745.
91 Paragraph 27, my emphasis.
92 See Kohler's pertinent observations in Diritto del Commercio Internazionale, 1990, p. 611, at p. 622.
93 See footnote 82 and the passage cited therein.
94 See, in particular, Stöve, Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen nach Handelsbrauch, Art. 17 EuGVü und § 38 ZPO, Heidelberg 1993, pp. 20 to 23, 56 et seq., who provides detailed reasoning; and, to the same effect, Geimer/Schütze, loc. cit. (footnote 13), p. 478; Schütze, Deutsches Internationales Zivilprozeßrecht, Berlin, 1985, p. 56; Gothot-Holleaux (footnote 60), section 175; and Kaye, Civil Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Abingdon, 1987, p. 1062 et seq.
95 Huet, Journal du droit international, 1990, p. 153, at p. 159.
96 See, in particular, Schmidt, Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft, 1992, p. 173, at p. 177.
97 Jung, Vereinbarungen über die Internationale Zuständigkeit nach dem EWG-Gerichtsstands- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen und nach § 38 Abs. 2 ZPO, Bochum, 1980, p. 172 et seq.; Lindacher, in Wolf/Hom/Lindacher, AGB-Gesetz, Kommentar, 2nd ed., Munich, 1989, annex to Article 2, sections 90 and 92; Rauscher, Zeitschrift für Zivilprozeß 104 (1991), pp. 272, 292 et seq.; ibid., Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts, 1992, pp. 143, 145; Ulmer, in Ulmer/Brandner/Hensen, AGB-Gesetz, Kommentar, 5th ed., Cologne, 1987, annex to Article 2, section 33; see also Hausmann, in Reithmann/Martiny, Internationales Vertragsrecht, 4th ed., Cologne, 1988, section 1203.
98 For a detailed discussion of the question, see Stove (footnote 93), p. 129 et seq.
99 See footnote 83.
100 OJ 1990 C 189, p. 57, last paragraph of section 59, at p. 77.
101 See Roth, Zeitschrift für Zivilprozeß 93, 1980, p. 156 et seq.
102 See Droz (footnote 61), section 215, at p. 134.
103 See also O'Malley/Layton, European civil practice, London, 1989, sections 21.37 and 21.70.
104 A different view is apparently taken by Kropholler in Europäisches Zivilprozeßrecht, 4th ed., Heidelberg, 1993, section 42 on Article 17 of the Convention: it is sufficient that a trade or commercial practice should exist in international trade or commerce and it is unnecessary to show precisely in what States that practice applies. A similar idea is to be found in Kropholler/Pfeifer, Festschrift für Heinrich Nagel, Münster, 1988, p. 157, at p. 163.
105 United Nations Convention of 11 April 1980 on contracts for the international sale of goods.
106 In any event, it is pointed out that the question put by the Bundesgerichtshof does not raise any issues concerning the habitual nature of incorporating a jurisdiction clause into general conditions incorporated by a letter of confirmation or concerning the habitual nature of the content of such a clause. This may turn on the type of the transaction at issue and perhaps also on the fact that the necessary findings have not yet been made by the tribunal of fact. In that regard, it may perhaps be necessary to specify the criterion which I have proposed in subsequent proceedings.
107 See also section 98 and footnote 91.
108 See section 112, supra.
109 See, for example, Ebenroth, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft, 77 (1978), p. 161 at p. 164 et seq.
110 See section 3 of the order for reference at p. 20.
111 Judgment in Case 150/80 Elefanten Schuh v Pierre Jacqmain [1981] ECR 1671.
112 Kohler, Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts, 1991, p. 299, at p. 300 (footnote 7).
113 See the judgments in Estatis Salotti (cited in footnote 88) and Segoura (cited in footnote 77). See also section 104 supra.