ECJ rules on the validity of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses

ECJ rules on the validity of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses – EAPIL

In this case, the relevant jurisdiction clause was included in a supply contract and provided:

the court of Brescia [(Italy)] shall have jurisdiction over any dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract. [SIL] reserves the right to sue the buyer before any other competent court in Italy or elsewhere.

The Court of Justice holds that EU law does indeed include a requirement of precision, which is implicit in the requirement that the parties have agreed on the competent court.

In the case at hand, the clause provided that one of the parties could sue “before any other competent court in Italy or elsewhere”. This clause is considered to breach the requirement of precision.

Therefore, the clause would have met the EU law requirement had it conferred jurisdiction on “any competent court of an EU Member State or of a State applying the Lugano Convention”.

The CJEU, for its part, rules that the asymmetry is irrelevant. The Court explains that the principle is the parties’ freedom of choice, and that the only exceptions to this principle are those expressly set out in the Brussels I bis, that is, to protect weaker parties and the rules on exclusive jurisdiction.