Article 23
1\. If the parties, one or more of whom is domiciled in a Member State, have agreed that a court or the courts of a Member State are to have jurisdiction to settle any disputes which have arisen or which may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship, that court or those courts shall have jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Such an agreement conferring jurisdiction shall be either:
(a) in writing or evidenced in writing; or
(b) in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves; or
(c) in international trade or commerce, in a form which accords with a usage of which the parties are or ought to have been aware and which in such trade or commerce is widely known to, and regularly observed by, parties to contracts of the type involved in the particular trade or commerce concerned.
2\. Any communication by electronic means which provides a durable record of the agreement shall be equivalent to "writing".
3\. Where such an agreement is concluded by parties, none of whom is domiciled in a Member State, the courts of other Member States shall have no jurisdiction over their disputes unless the court or courts chosen have declined jurisdiction.
4\. The court or courts of a Member State on which a trust instrument has conferred jurisdiction shall have exclusive jurisdiction in any proceedings brought against a settlor, trustee or beneficiary, if relations between these persons or their rights or obligations under the trust are involved.
5\. Agreements or provisions of a trust instrument conferring jurisdiction shall have no legal force if they are contrary to Articles 13, 17 or 21, or if the courts whose jurisdiction they purport to exclude have exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of Article 22.
Apple Sales International and Others v MJA
In an action for damages brought by a distributor against its supplier on the basis of Article 102 TFEU, a jurisdiction clause in the contract between them is not excluded merely because that clause does not expressly refer to disputes about liability arising from an infringement of competition law.
Apple Sales International and Others v MJA
A jurisdiction clause can apply to a distributor's damages action against its supplier based on Article 102 TFEU even without a prior finding by a national or EU authority that competition law was infringed.
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Acacia Srl
A challenge to the jurisdiction of the court seised, raised in the defendant's first submission in the alternative to other procedural objections in that same submission, is not acceptance of that court's jurisdiction and does not prorogate jurisdiction under Article 24. When the defendant is domiciled in an EU Member State, an action for a declaration of non-infringement under Article 81(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be brought before the Community design courts of that Member State - except where jurisdiction has been prorogated under Article 23 or Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001, and subject to the rules on lis pendens and related actions in those regulations. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 does not apply to actions for a declaration of non-infringement under Article 81(b) of Regulation No 6/2002. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 also does not apply to actions for a declaration of abuse of a dominant position and of unfair competition that are connected to actions for declaration of non-infringement, in so far as granting those applications presupposes that the action for declaration of non-infringement is allowed.
Georgios Leventis and Nikolaos Vafeias v Malcon Navigation Co. Ltd and Brave Bulk Transport Ltd
A jurisdiction clause in a contract between two companies cannot be relied on by the representatives of one of them to dispute a court's jurisdiction over a damages action seeking to hold them jointly and severally liable for allegedly tortious acts committed in the performance of their duties.
Hőszig Kft. v Alstom Power Thermal Services
A jurisdiction clause meets Article 23(1)'s requirements on the parties' consent and on precision where it is contained in the client's general terms and conditions, those terms are referred to in the instruments recording the contracts and were forwarded when the contracts were concluded, and the clause designates the courts of a city of a Member State as having jurisdiction.
Profit Investment SIM SpA v Stefano Ossi and Others
If a jurisdiction clause is included in a bond issue prospectus, the formal requirement in Article 23(1)(a) is met only if the contract signed by the parties on the primary market expressly accepts that clause or expressly refers to that prospectus. That clause may be relied on against a third party who acquired the bonds from a financial intermediary if it is established - which it is for the referring court to verify - that (i) the clause is valid in the relationship between the issuer and the intermediary, (ii) under the applicable national law the third party succeeded to the intermediary's rights and obligations attached to the bonds, and (iii) the third party had the opportunity to acquaint himself with the prospectus containing the clause. Inserting a jurisdiction clause into a bond issue prospectus may count, for the purposes of Article 23(1)(c), as a form that accords with a usage in international trade or commerce and allows the consent of the person against whom it is relied on to be presumed, provided inter alia that it is established - which it is for the referring court to verify - that (i) operators in the trade or commerce concerned generally and regularly follow that practice when concluding contracts of that type and (ii) either the parties previously had commercial or trade relations with each other or with other parties operating in that sector, or the practice is sufficiently well known to be considered established.
Jaouad El Majdoub v CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH
Article 23(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 treats click-wrapping acceptance of general terms and conditions in an electronically concluded contract for sale, including a jurisdiction agreement, as a communication by electronic means that provides a durable record of the agreement, provided that the method allows the text of those terms and conditions to be printed and saved before the contract is concluded.
Refcomp SpA v Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance SA and Others
A jurisdiction clause agreed in the contract between the manufacturer of goods and the buyer cannot be relied on against a sub-buyer who acquired the goods through a succession of contracts transferring ownership between parties established in different Member States and who brings an action for damages against the manufacturer, unless it is established that the sub-buyer actually consented to that clause under the conditions laid down in Article 23.