Top

Published in:

2020 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Optional Choice of Court Agreements: German National Report

Author : Matthias Weller

Published in: Optional Choice of Court Agreements in Private International Law

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

This chapter analyzes the treatment of choice of court agreements in German law and was delivered at the 20th Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law held in Fukuoka on 22–28 July 2018. While Sect. 1 describes the historical developments surrounding choice of court agreements in Germany, Sect. 2 focuses on the civil procedural rules in force, namely Sections 38 and 40 ZPO (Zivilprozessordnung). Sections 3 and 4 then deal with specific questions regarding optional and asymmetrical choice of court agreements. Finally, Sect. 5 provides a critical assessment, as well as comments on current and future reforms.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter France: A Game of Asymmetries, Optional and Asymmetrical Choice of Court Agreements Under French Case Law

next chapter Greece: A Forum Favorable to Optional Choice of Court Agreements

Zivilprozessordnung as published on 5 December 2005 (Federal Law Gazette [Bundesgesetzblatt], BGBl. I 3202; 2006 I 431; 2007 I 1781), amended most recently by Article 1 of the Law of 31 January 2019 (BGBl. I 54).

Civilprozeßordnung (“CPO”) of 30 January 1877, Imperial Law Gazette (Reichgesetzblatt) 1877, 83.

Section 38 CPO.

Party autonomy was limited only by section 40 CPO.

Section 38 CPO reads in German: “Ein an sich unzuständiges Gericht erster Instanz wird durch ausdrückliche oder stillschweigende Vereinbarung der Parteien zuständig”.

Section 40 CPO reads in German: “(1) Die Vereinbarung hat keine rechtliche Wirkung, wenn sie nicht auf ein bestimmtes Rechtsverhältniß und die aus demselben entspringenden Rechtsstreitigkeiten sich bezieht. (2) Die Vereinbarung ist unzulässig, wenn der Rechtsstreit andere als vermögensrechtliche Ansprüche betrifft, oder wenn für die Klage ein ausschließlicher Gerichtsstand begründet ist”.

Hüßtege (2017b), § 38 para 31; Bendtsen (2017), § 38 para 30.

Hahn (1881), p. 160: “Im Einklangmit der Tendenz der neueren deutschen Prozeßgesetze (…) und Entwürfe (…) gewähren die Vorschriften des dritten Teils der prorogation fori einen weiten Spielraum”. In translation: “In accordance with the tendency of the recent German legislation on procedure…and drafts…the provisions of the third part of the prorogatio fori leave a large margin”.

Law to Change the Code of Civil Procedure (“Gesetz zur Änderung der Zivilprozessordnung”) of 21 March 1974, Federal Law Gazette (Bundesgesetzblatt), BGBl. 1974 I 753, taking effect on 1 April 1974.

A detailed analysis will follow below Sect. 2.

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), OJ L 351 of 20 December 2012, 1; 1968 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 299 of 31 December 1972, 32. The latter instrument was a purely intergovernmental measure envisaged by Article 220 EEC but was ratified by all founding EEC Member States soon after the EEC came into being and was acceded to by all States later joining the EU.

Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements. On 5 October 2006, the Council of the European Union (EU) adopted the decision on the accession of the (then) European Community to the Hague Conference on Private International Law and the European Community became a formal member of the Hague Conference on Private International Law on 3 April 2007. On 1 April 2009, the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements was signed by the European Community and ratified by the European Union on 11 June 2015 with effect to all EU Member States except Denmark. However, Denmark ratified the Convention in 2018. On the EU’s way into the Hague Conference see e.g. Weller (2016a), p. 53 et seq., paras 40 et seq.

See on these two instruments from a comparative viewpoint e.g. Weller (2017), p. 91. See also e.g. Weller (2016b), p. 393.

Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 339 of 21 December 2007, 3.

United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York 1958. The Convention applies to Germany since 30 June 1961.

One exception are the formal requirements for choice of court agreements under section 38 (2) ZPO that were autonomously harmonized with Article 17 Brussels Convention, see Bey (2017a), § 38 para 12; Toussaint (2017), § 38 para 34. Arguably, the new formal requirements under Article 23 Brussels I Regulation/Article 25 Brussels Ibis Regulation should be transplanted, by way of interpretation, to section 38 (2) ZPO as well, see e.g. Vollkommer (2016), § 38 para 28.

On this presumption in the Hague Convention see Weller (2015), Haager Prorogationsübereinkommen para 9; see also Schulz (2006), p. 253 et seq.: “the presumption under common law is normally the opposite”.

See e.g. Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2015, 1118; Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Monatsschrift für Deutsches Recht 1968, 474; Imperial Court (Reichsgericht) Juristische Wochenschrift 1911, 49; Hüßtege (2017b), § 38 para 32.

See e.g. Weller (2014), p. 257. Aditionally, the autonomous jurisdictional law applies as a standard of control according to section 328 (1) no 1 ZPO when it comes to the recognition of a judgment from such a third state.

But Weller (2005), p. 302 et seq. on the central point in autonomous German jurisdictional law whether the derogation of German courts (governed by autonmous German jurisdictional law exclusively, on this aspect see below at note 93 and accompanying text in more detail) must be deemed null and void in order to protect fundamental values and notions of justice of the German legal order.

“Double functionality” (Doppelfunktionalität) of the venue rules of sections 12 et seq. ZPO; see Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) NJW-Rechtsprechung-Report Zivilrecht 2010, 1554 para 10; Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1965, 1665.

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1968, 1233; Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1972, 1622; Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) München Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts 1991, 46, 48.

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 50; Hüßtege (2017b), Vorb § 38 para 2; Vollkommer (2016), § 38 para 4.

Vollkommer (2016), Vor § 38 para 4; Patzina (2016), § 38 para 1.

See section 331 (1) ZPO: “Beantragt der Kläger gegen den im Termin zur mündlichen Verhandlung nicht erschienenen Beklagten das Versäumnisurteil, so ist das tatsächliche mündliche Vorbringen des Klägers als zugestanden anzunehmen”. In translation: “If the plaintiff applies for a default judgment after the defendant has not appeared in the hearing, the factual submissions of the plaintiff are deemed to be accepted by the defendant”.

Patzina (2016), § 38 para 1; Vollkommer (2016), Vor § 38 para 4. See also the Reasoning in the Legislative Proposal to the 1974 Reform Act, BT-Drucks. 7/268, 1: “Wirtschaftlich schwache und geschäftlich unerfahrene Personen gehen beim Abschluß von Verträgen oft Erfüllungsorts- oder Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen ein, ohne deren Bedeutung zu erkennen. Im Streifalle führt dies oft zum Versäumnisurteil am weit entfernten, aber als zuständig vereinbarten Gericht, obwohl die Sache materiell-rechtlich für die beklagte Partei nicht aussichtlos war”.

See e.g. Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) München Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1973, 1885; Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Frankfurt Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1974, 194.

See above note 9.

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1983, 162; Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 4; Heinrich (2017), § 38 para 1.

Vollkommer (2016), Vor § 38 para 5.

See above at note 21 and accompanying text.

Translation provided by the German Federal Ministry of Justice, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_zpo/englisch_zpo.html.

Vollkommer (2016), Vor § 38 para 5; Gottwald (1985), p. 95 et seq.

Jauernig (2002), p. 41: “autoritäre Sozialpolitik”.

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1983, 1320, 1322.

Bey (2017a), § 38 para 1; Vollkommer (2016), Vor § 38 para 5.

Bey (2017a), § 38 para 1.

Vollkommer (2016), Vor § 38 para 5.

Hartmann (2017), § 38 para 2.

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 4.

Hüßtege (2017b), Vorb § 38 ZPO para 11.

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1983, 1322; Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Hamburg Monatsschrift für Deutsches Recht 2000, 170; Patzina (2016), § 38 para 22.

See below Sect. 4.

Hüßtege (2017b), Vorb § 38 para 3; Bendtsen (2017), § 38 para 1.

Hüßtege (2017b), Vorb § 38 para 4; Bey (2017a), § 38 para 4; but compare Schilken (2004), p. 450.

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 64.

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 64; see Toussaint (2017), § 38 para 6.

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 71; Smid and Hartmann (2015), § 38 ZPO para 70.

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 71.

Smid and Hartmann (2015), § 38 ZPO para 70; Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 71.

Conceptually, such an agreement is no longer conceived as a choice of court agreement but rather as an agreement that bars proceedings as such (Prozesshindernis), see e.g. Bacher (2017), § 253 ZPO, para 18.2.

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1996, 3013, 3014; Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Brandenburg Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2006, 3444, 3446; Hüßtege (2017b), § 38 para 28. See also, in respect to international agreements, Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 69. Under section 38 (3) ZPO, however, a certain specific court must be chosen (Ausdrücklichkeitserfordernis), see Smid and Hartmann (2015), § 38 ZPO para 58.

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1983, 996; Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Brandenburg Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2006, 3444, 3446; Bey (2017a), § 38 para 2.

Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Karlsruhe Entscheidungen der Oberlandesgerichte in Zivilsachen 1973, 479; Vollkommer (2016), § 38 para 13; Patzina (2016), § 38 para 41.

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) NJW-Rechtsprechung-Report Zivilrecht 1986, 1311; Vollkommer (2016), § 38 para 13.

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess 73 (1960), 255; Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht) Berlin Betriebs-Berater 1983, 213; Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 64 with further references.

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 64.

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 52.

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 56; Toussaint (2017), § 38 para 5; for a different view see Häsemeyer (2005), p. 299.

Hüßtege (2017b), Vorb § 38 para 2; Bendtsen (2017), § 38 para 3.

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 52; Vollkommer (2016), § 38 para 6.

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 53.

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 60; Vollkommer (2016), § 38 para 9a. See also section 1066 ZPO for arbitration agreements. The ratio of this provision applies to choice of court agreements as well.

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 65.

See section 261 (3) no. 2 ZPO.

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) NJW-Rechtsprechung-Report Zivilrecht 2010, 891; Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) NJW-Rechtsprechung-Report Zivilrecht 1995, 513; Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) München, decision of 23 May 2016—docket no. 34 AR 65/16, para 11; Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 65 n. 160 with further references.

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1976, 626; Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1963, 585, 586; Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) NJW-Rechtsprechung-Report Zivilrecht 1989, 716.

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 65.

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachen 69, 265 et seq.; Vollkommer (2016), § 38 para 8.

See below Sects. 2.1.8 and 2.1.9 for more detail.

See above Sect. 1.2.

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2015, 1118; Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) NJW-Rechtsprechung-Report Zivilrecht 1999, 137, 138; Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 4.

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1965, 300; Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Hamm, decision of 5 February 2016—docket no. 32 Sa 79/15, para 18; Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Stuttgart Neue Juristische Online-Zeitschrift 2008, 2290, 2292 et seq.

Wurmnest (2013), p. 75.

But see e.g. Pfeiffer (2012), p. 2057.

Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Stuttgart Neue Juristische Online-Zeitschrift 2008, 2290, 2293; Vollkommer (2016), § 40 para 4; Bork (2014), § 40 ZPO para 1 with further references.

Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Hamburg Versicherungsrecht 1982, 341; Bendtsen (2017), § 38 para 31; but compare Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Stuttgart Neue Juristische Online-Zeitschrift 2008, 2290, 2293.

Bey (2017b), § 40 para 2; Vollkommer (2016), § 40 para 2.

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachen 157, 224, 227 et seq.; Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachen 153, 82, 84; Krüger (2016), § 545 para 17; for a different view see e.g. Hartmann (2017), Übers § 38 para 10.

Hüßtege (2017b), § 38 para 7; Smid and Hartmann (2015), § 38 ZPO para 84.

Hüßtege (2017b), § 38 para 7.

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 10; Bey (2017a), § 38 para 6.

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 17; Hüßtege (2017b), § 38 para 9. It is of no relevance whether the status ceases to exist after the conclusion of the agreement, Bendtsen (2017), § 38 para 12. Conversely, it does not cure the invalidity if the necessary status is acquired after the conclusion of the agreement. However, the parties are of course free to enter into a new agreement. Successors in law such as an assignee of the claim subject to the agreement remain bound even if they do not themselves have the necessary status to conclude a choice of court agreement, see Vollkommer (2016), § 38 para 10; for a different view see Regional Court (Landgericht) Trier Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1982, 286.

There are, however, legal persons under private law without the status of a merchant, i.e. small, but registered non-profit associations (Idealverein), section 21 German Civil Code.

It has to be noted, that the group of “non-merchants” is not congruent with the group of “consumers” as merchants acting in their capacity as consumers, i.e. transacting for private purposes, are still capable of concluding choice of court agreements under section 38 (1) ZPO and do not fall under the stricter provision for non-merchants under section 38 (2) ZPO. This does not appear to be convincing but rather illustrates the outdated state of sections 38 and 40 ZPO as opposed to modern notions of consumer protection law to which these provisions from 1974 have not yet been adjusted to.

See sections 305 et seq. German Civil Code. According to the standards laid down there, choice of court agreements in standard terms will not be considered as surprising terms and thus not included but if none of the parties has its domicile at the place of the chosen court and if there is no other substantial connection to the chosen court, there will be an issue, see Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 20. Furthermore, a choice of court as such will not be considered as unfair. However, there will be an issue if the agreement unilaterally favors the party using the standard terms, see Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Hamburg Monatsschrift für Deutsches Recht 2000, 170, 171; Bey (2017a), § 38 para 8. If there is a valid and an invalid component of the agreement, a “blue pencil test” applies, Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Karlsruhe, judgment of 10 March 2015—docket no. 8 U 208/13; Bey (2017a), § 38 para 8.

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 19; Hüßtege (2017b), § 38 para 25.

This is disputed, see Hüßtege (2017b), § 38 para 25 with further references.

Patzina (2016), § 38 para 5; Bendtsen (2017), § 38 para 9.

According to most commentators and courts, section 38 (1) ZPO extends to international choice of court agreements of the persons covered by this provision, see Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2016, 2328, 2329 et seq.; Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Bankrecht 1985, 1507, 1509; Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Saarbrücken Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2000, 670, 671; Heinrich (2017), § 38 para 13; others want to apply both section 38 (1) and (2) ZPO, see Local Court (Amtsgericht) Berlin-Charlottenburg Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1975, 502 or only section 38 (2) ZPO, see Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Nürnberg Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1985, 1296 et seq.; Vollkommer (2016), § 38 para 25.

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), judgment of 9 June 2016—docket no. IX ZR 314/14, para 38; Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 25; for a different view see Hartmann (2017), § 38 para 21.

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 29.

See section 38 (2) Sentence 3 ZPO.

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 32; Bendtsen (2017), § 38 para 19.

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1971, 325; Hüßtege (2017b), Vorb § 38 para 5.

Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1973, 963: No derogation by an employee in international cases if such derogation would impair the legitimate interests of the employee. See also section 48 (2) German Labour Court Law (Arbeitsgerichtsgesetz) in relation to choice of court agreements in collective labour agreements (Tarifverträgen).

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 32; Bendtsen (2017), § 38 para 19.

Geimer (2016), IZPR para 77 et seq.; Nagel and Gottwald (2013), § 3 para 462; also see Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) München Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts 1984, 318; Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Hamburg Versicherungsrecht 1983, 1149; for a different view see Wagner (1998), p. 358 et seq.

100

In the Recast of the Brussels I Regulation, the requirement in Article 23 Brussels I Regulation that one party must have its domicile within an EU Member State was removed to the effect that now Article 25 Brussels Ibis Regulation applies to any international agreement in favor of a court located in an EU Member State.

101

Schlosser (1979), 71, 124 para 176: “In cases where parties agree to bring their disputes before the courts of a State which is not a party to the 1968 Convention there is obviously nothing in the 1968 Convention to prevent such courts from declaring themselves competent, if their law recognizes the validity of such an agreement. (…) There is nothing in the 1968 Convention to support the conclusion that such agreements must be inadmissible in principle. However, the 1968 Convention does not contain any rules as to their validity either”.

102

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 33 and 69.

103

Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) München Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts 1984, 319; Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Hamburg Monatsschrift für Deutsches Recht 1973, 1025; Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 33.

104

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Versicherungsrecht 1974, 471; Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1971, 325; Patzina (2016), § 38 para 43; Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 34 with further references; for a different view (no exclusive choice of court agreement possible) see Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) München Monatsschrift für Deutsches Recht 1957, 45; Vollkommer (2016), § 38 para 14.

105

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Versicherungsrecht 1974, 470; Heinrich (2017), § 38 para 20; Bey (2017a), § 38 para 4.

106

See Weller (2005), p. 302 et seq.; also see Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess 78 (1975), 318; Geimer (2016), IZPR para 83. See also, in respect to internationally mandatory norms that would otherwise not be enforced, Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Internationales Handelsrecht 2013, 35; Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1984, 2037; Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Stuttgart Internationales Handelsrecht 2012, 163; Bey (2017b), § 40 para 6; for a different view see Geimer (2016), para 65.

107

Weller (2005), p. 302 et seq. with further references.

108

E.g. Schack (2017), p. 201, para 516.

109

Bendtsen (2017), § 38 para 23; Bey (2017a), § 38 para 17.

110

Different views by the parties on a certain legal relationship that were mutually communicated suffice to open the door for this exception, see Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 37; Hüßtege (2017b), § 38 para 17a. Other commentators require that a court proceeding is imminent, Vollkommer (2016), § 38 para 33 with further references. Some commentators let suffice any kind of legal doubts communicated to the other party, Hartmann (2017), § 38 para 34. Once a party has instituted proceedings, however, it is too late to ground an agreement on this option, Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) NJW-Rechtsprechung-Report Zivilrecht 2010, 891, para 9; Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1953, 1140; Bey (2017a), § 38 para 16; for a different view see Regional Court (Landgericht) Flensburg Schleswig-Holsteinische Anzeigen 79, 39; Regional Court (Landgericht) Waldshut-Tiengen, Monatsschrift für Deutsches Recht 1985, 941.

111

Bey (2017a), § 38 para 15; Vollkommer (2016), § 38 para 35a.

112

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 40.

113

On these see below Sect. 2.3.

114

Hüßtege (2017b), § 40 para 4.

115

Bork (2014), § 40 ZPO para 1.

116

Bork (2014), § 40 ZPO para 1; Hüßtege (2017b), § 40 para 4.

117

Toussaint (2017), § 40 para 2; Smid and Hartmann (2015), § 40 ZPO para 4.

118

Some require a parallel contractual claim based on the same facts, Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1970, 2180; Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1965, 300; Bork (2014), § 40 ZPO para 1; others exclude derogations but allow prorogations, Geimer (2016), IZPR, para 70; Geimer (2014), p. 731 with further references.

119

See sections 111, 121, 151 Act on Proceedings in Family Matters and in Matters of Non-contentious Jurisdiction (FamFG), also see sections 23a (1) no. 1, 23b (1) Courts Constitution Act (GVG), and section 122 FamFG.

120

Bork (2014), § 40 ZPO para 11 with further references; for a different view see Rosenberg et al. (2010), § 31 para 49 et seq.

121

See above Sect. 2.1.

122

See above Sect. 2.3.

123

These general matters of interpretation are goverend by the law applicable to the agreement in general, the lex prorogationis (“Prorogationsstatut”). There is a debate on whether such a distinct lex prorogationis or lex causae exists at all, see e.g. Antomo (2012), pp. 183, 193; von Hoffmann and Thorn (2007), p. 87 et seq. para 79; Wagner (1998), p. 369 et seq. At any rate, there is consensus that the parties remain free to choose the applicable law for the agreement even though this will occur only rarely in practice. A follow-up question then is, how such a lex prorogationis is to be determined. Most commentators hold that the parties may freely choose the lex prorogationis in analogy to the choice of law rules of the Rome I Regulation. In practice and thus in the absence of any express will of the parties in regard to the lex prorogationis, the law of the main contract, the lex contractus, is deemed to also govern the choice of court agreement, see e.g. Hüßtege (2017b), Vorb § 38 para 6; Martiny (2015), Vor Art. 1 Rom I-VO para 61; but compare Thorn (2017), Art. 1 Rom I-VO para 11: Article 4 (4) Rome I Regulation should apply by analogy but would lead to the German lex fori processualis.

124

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) NJW-Rechtsprechung-Report Zivilrecht 2005, 929, 930 et seq.; Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1997, 2885, 2886; Heinrich (2017), § 38 para 3.

125

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2015, 1118 para 22; Hüßtege (2017b), § 38 para 32.

126

This is almost uncontested today, see Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2015, 1118; Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1973, 422; Imperial Court (Reichsgericht) Juristische Wochenschrift 1911, 49; Vollkommer (2016), § 38 para 14; for different views see Kohler (1886), p. 484 (presumption against exclusivity) and Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht) Berlin Die Rechtsprechung der Oberlandesgerichte 2 (1901), 106; Westerburg (1877), p. 591; Hüßtege (2017b), Vorb § 38 para 8 (presumption in favor of exclusivity).

127

Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Düsseldorf Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 1990, 220; Nagel and Gottwald (2013), § 3 para 481.

128

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1971, 325; Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1968, 356; Hüßtege (2017b), Vorb § 38 para 8.

129

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 34 with further references; this view is rejected by other commentators, see Schütze (1984), p. 247; Smid and Hartmann (2015), § 38 ZPO para 125.

130

Vollkommer (2016), § 38 para 2.

131

Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Frankfurt OLG-Report 1996, 95; Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Bamberg NJW-Rechtsprechung-Report Zivilrecht 1989, 371; Vollkommer (2016), § 38 para 14; but compare Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Koblenz Zeitschrift für Miet- und Raumrecht 1997, 187; Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Frankfurt Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 1985, 71.

132

Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Frankfurt Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts 1998, 35, 36; Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Hamburg Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1952, 1020; Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 70.

133

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 33.

134

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1968, 356, 357.

135

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2015, 1118; Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1997, 2885, 2886; Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1973, 422; Bey (2017a), § 38 para 2.

136

Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Hamm, judgment of 13 December 2013—docket no. 32 SA 84/13; Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Schleswig Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2006, 3360, 3361; Regional Court (Landgericht) Karlsruhe, decision of 26 September 2017—docket no. 6 O 102/17; Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 70. It is unclear how this case law relates to the contra proferentem rule under the law on the control of standard terms, but it seems to be the approach of the courts that in many cases the interpretation is so clear that there is no room for that rule.

137

Jayme and Haack (1985), p. 323.

138

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 23; Hüßtege (2017b), Vorb § 38 para 7.

139

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1986, 1438; Hüßtege (2017b), Vorb § 38 para 7.

140

Hüßtege (2017a), Art. 25 EuGVVO para 24; Gottwald (2017), Art. 28 VO (EU) 1215/2012 para 1.

141

See Mankowski (2015), Art. 25 Brüssel-Ia-VO para 3; also see Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 16 June 2016 – C-12/15 (Universal Music International Holding/Schilling et al), para 45 et seq.

142

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) NJW-Rechtsprechung-Report Zivilrecht 2004, 935; Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Frankfurt Monatsschrift für Deutsches Recht 1975, 232; Stadler (2017), Art. 25 EuGVVO para 2.

143

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachen 59, 113.

144

See Section 261 (3) no 1 ZPO (by way of analogous application, see Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2001, 524, 525; Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1986, 2195) and Article 29 (1) Brussels Ibis Regulation.

145

The Brussels Ibis Regulation, the Lugano Convention and the Hague Choice of Court Convention, see Sect. 1.

146

In case of third states not participating in any of the aforementioned international instruments.

147

See e.g. section 29 lit. c (1) sentence 1 ZPO (optional jurisdiction in favor the consumer at the consumer’s domicile in doorstep selling cases) as opposed to sentence 2 (exclusive jurisdiction for claims against the consumer).

148

See generally Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2015, 1118, 1119; Hüßtege (2017b), § 38 para 32.

149

It is even controversial in Germany whether the violation of an exclusive choice of court agreement may bring about damages since procedural law attributing the winning party a claim for the recovery of all costs may well be considered to be sufficient (at least in general), see e.g. Antomo (2017), passim; Schlosser (1979), p. 111; Wagner (1998), p. 556 et seq.; Sandrock (2004), p. 809.

150

See above Sect. 3.5.

151

152

See Article 45 (1) lit. e Brussels Ibis Regulation.

153

See Articles 35 (1) and (3) Lugano Convention.

154

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 70.

155

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachen 59, 118; Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachen 52, 36; Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 19.

156

Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 33 with further references.

157

For a comparative account see Weller (2017), p. 91, 102 et seq. See also Basedow (2014), p. 344 et seq.

158

See e.g. Schack (2017), p. 200, para 515, with further references.

159

For an in-depth analysis and a justification of the public policy control as a necessary and inevitable element of the law on exclusive choice of court agreements Weller (2005), passim.

160

Weller (2005), p. 302 et seq. with further references.

161

Bälz and Stompfe (2017), p. 157; also see Smid and Hartmann (2015), § 38 ZPO para 126.

162

See in more detail below text to notes 169–175.

163

Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Karlsruhe Entscheidungen der Oberlandesgerichte in Zivilsachen 1973, 479; Bork (2014), § 38 ZPO para 69.

164

Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Karlsruhe Entscheidungen der Oberlandesgerichte in Zivilsachen 1973, 479; Vollkommer (2016), § 38 para 13.

165

Vollkommer (2016), § 38 para 13.

166

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1983, 996; Vollkommer (2016), § 38 para 13.

167

See Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess 88 (1975), 318; Nagel and Gottwald (2013), § 3 para 474; also see Bälz and Stompfe (2017), pp. 157, 159 and 160.

168

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1989, 1477.

169

Bälz and Stompfe (2017), p. 160 et seq.

170

Bälz and Stompfe (2017), p. 161.

171

Nagel and Gottwald (2013), § 3 para 475; Bälz and Stompfe (2017), p. 160; also see Wais (2017), p. 848 et seq.

172

Pfeiffer (1998), pp. 17, 25; also see Smid and Hartmann (2015), § 38 ZPO para 95.

173

Bälz and Stompfe (2017), p. 163.

174

Section 307 (1) s. 2 German Civil Code.

175

See Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1999, 282; Bälz and Stompfe (2017), p. 163.

176

For a comparative account see Weller (2017), p. 102 et seq.

177

For an in-depth analysis and a justification of the public policy control as a necessary and inevitable element of the law on exclusive choice of court agreements Weller (2005), passim.

Antomo J (2012) Das auf internationale Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen nach § 38 ZPO anwendbare Recht. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess International 17:183–205

Antomo J (2017) Schadensersatz wegen der Verletzung einer internationalen Gerichtsstandsvereinbarung? Mohr Siebeck, TübingenCrossRef

Bälz K, Stompfe P (2017) Asymmetrische Streitbeilegungsklauseln in internationalen Wirtschaftsverträgen: Zulässigkeit, Grenzen, Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten. Zeitschrift für Schiedsverfahren 4:157–164

Basedow J (2014) Zuständigkeitsderogation, Eingriffsnormen und ordre public. In: Mankowski P, Wurmnest W (eds) Festschrift für Ulrich Magnus zum 70. Geburtstag. Sellier, Munich, pp 255–272

Bendtsen R (2017) 38 ZPO. In: Saenger I (ed) Zivilprozessordnung, 7th edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden

Bey R (2017a) § 38 ZPO. In: Prütting H, Gehrlein M (eds) Zivilprozessordnung, 9th edn. Luchterhand, Munich

Bey R (2017b) § 40 ZPO. In: Prütting H, Gehrlein M (eds) Zivilprozessordnung, 9th edn. Luchterhand, Munich

Bork R (2014) § 38 ZPO. In: Stein F, Jonas M (founders) Zivilprozessordnung, vol 1, 23rd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Geimer G (2016) Internationales Zivilprozessrecht. In: Zöller R (founder) Zöller Zivilprozessordnung, 31st edn. Otto Schmidt, Cologne, pp 40–60

Geimer R (2014) Forum actoris für Kapitalanlegerklagen. In: Witzleb N et al (eds) Festschrift für Dieter Martiny zum 70. Geburtstag. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 711–734

Gottwald P (1985) Grenzen internationaler Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen. In: Henrich D (ed) Festschrift für Karl Firsching zum 70. Geburtstag. CH Beck, Munich, pp 89–110

Gottwald P (2017) Art. 28 VO (EU) 1215/2012. In: Krüger W, Rauscher T (eds) Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, vol 3, 5th edn. CH Beck, Munich

Hahn C (1881) Die gesamten Materialien zu den Reichs-Justizgesetzen: Materialien zur Zivilprozeßordnung, vol 2, part 1. R.v. decker, Berlin

Hartmann P (2017) § 38 ZPO. In: Baumbach A et al (eds) Zivilprozessordnung, 75th edn. C.H. Beck, Munich

Häsemeyer L (2005) Beteiligtenverhalten im Zivilprozess. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess 118(3):265–312

Heinrich C (2017) § 38 ZPO. In: Musielak H-J, Voit W (eds) Zivilprozessordnung, 14th edn. Franz Vahlen, Munich

Hüßtege R (2017a) Art. 25 EuGVVO. In: Thomas H, Putzo H (founders) Zivilprozessordnung, 38th edn. CH Beck, Munich

Hüßtege R (2017b) § 38 ZPO. In: Thomas H, Putzo H (founders) Zivilprozessordnung, 38th edn. CH Beck, Munich

Jauernig O (2002) Zivilprozessrecht, 27th edn. CH Beck, Munich

Jayme E, Haack H (1985) Reziproke Gerichtsstandsklauseln – EuGVÜ und Drittstaaten. Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts, p 323

Kohler J (1886) Prorogation, Kombinationsgerichtsstand, Prinzipalintervention. Beiträge zur Erläuterung des deutschen Rechts 30:481–499

Krüger W (2016) § 545 ZPO. In: Krüger W, Rauscher T (eds) Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, vol 2, 5th edn. CH Beck, Munich, pp 620–626

Mankowski P (2015) Art. 25 Brüssel-Ia-VO. In: Rauscher T (ed) Europäisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht, vol 1, 4th edn. Otto Schmidt, Cologne

Martiny D (2015) Art. 1 Rom I-VO. In: von Hein J (ed) Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch: Internationales Privatrecht I, Europäisches Kollisionsrecht, Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche (Art. 1-24), vol 10, 6th edn. CH Beck, Munich

Nagel H, Gottwald P (2013) Internationales Zivilprozessrecht, 7th edn. Otto Schmidt, CologneCrossRef

Patzina R (2016) § 38 ZPO. In: Krüger W, Rauscher T (eds) Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, vol 1, 5th edn. CH Beck, Munich

Pfeiffer T (1998) Halbseitig fakultative Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen in stillschweigend vereinbarten AGB?. Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts, pp 17–25

Pfeiffer T (2012) German jurisdiction clauses in anti-cartel cases before English Courts. In: Hestermeyer HP et al (eds) Coexistence, cooperation and solidarity. Liber Amicorum Rüdiger Wolfrum, vol 2. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 2057–2069

Rosenberg L et al (2010) Zivilprozessrecht, 17th edn. CH Beck, Munich

Sandrock O (2004) Prorogierter Gerichtsstand in Deutschland, Kosten in den USA: Erstattungsfähigkeit in Deutschland? Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 10:809–815

Schack H (2017) Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht mit internationalem Insolvenz- und Schiedsverfahrensrecht: ein Studienbuch, 7th edn. CH Beck, Munich

Schilken E (2004) Zur Zulässigkeit von Zuständigkeitsvereinbarungen bei Beteiligung von Nichtkaufleuten (§§ 38 Abs. 3, 40 ZPO). In: Heinrich C (ed) Festschrift für Hans-Joachim Musielak zum 70. Geburtstag. CH Beck, Munich, pp 435–455

Schlosser P (1979) Report 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, OJ C 59 of 5 March 1979

Schulz A (2006) The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on choice of court agreements. J Priv Int Law 2:243–286CrossRef

Schütze R (1984) Bedeutung der im Forum Prorogatum ergehenden Entscheidung für die Wirksamkeit einer ausschließlichen internationalen Gerichtsstandsvereinbarung. Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts, pp 246–249

Smid S, Hartmann P (2015) § 38 ZPO. In: Wieczorek B, Schütze RA (eds) Zivilprozessordnung, vol 1/2, 4th edn. de Gruyter, Berlin

Stadler A (2017) Art. 25 EuGVVO. In: Musielak H-J, Voit W (eds) Zivilprozessordnung, 14th edn. Franz Vahlen, Munich

Thorn K (2017) Art. 1 Rom I-VO. In: Palandt O (founder) Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, 76th edn. CH Beck, Munich

Toussaint G (2017) § 38 ZPO. In: Vorwerk V, Wolf C (eds) BeckOK ZPO, 25th edn. CH Beck, Munich

Vollkommer M (2016) § 38 ZPO. In: Zöller R (founder) Zöller Zivilprozessordnung, 31st edn. Otto Schmidt, Cologne

von Hoffmann B, Thorn K (2007) Internationales Privatrecht, 9th edn. CH Beck, Munich

Wagner G (1998) Prozeßverträge: Privatautonomie im Verfahrensrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Wais H (2017) Einseitige Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen und die Schranken der Parteiautonomie. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 81(4):815–857CrossRef

Weller M (2005) Ordre-public-Kontrolle internationaler Gerichtsstandsvereinbarugen im autonomen Zusständigkeitsrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Weller M (2014) Die “verbesserte Wirksamkeit” der europäischen Gerichtsstandsvereinbarung nach der Reform der Brüssel I-VO. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess International 19:251–279

Weller M (2015) Haager Prorogationsübereinkommen. In: Rauscher T (ed) Europäisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht, vol 2, 4th edn. Otto Schmidt, Cologne, pp 705–751

Weller M (2016a) Allgemeine Lehren. In: Weller M (ed) Europäisches Kollisionsrecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 19–125

Weller M (2016b) Validity and interpretation of international choice of court agreements: validity and interpretation of international choice of court agreements: the case for an extended use of transnational non- state contract law. In: UNIDROIT (ed) Eppur si muove: The Age of Uniform Law, Essays in Honour of Michael Joachim Bonell to celebrate his 70th birthday, vol 1. UNIDROIT, Rome, pp 393–406

Weller M (2017) Choice of court agreements under Brussels Ia and under the Hague convention: coherences and clashes. J Priv Int Law 13:91–129CrossRef

Westerburg A (1877) Glossen zur Civilprozeßordnung für das Deutsche Reich. Beiträge zur Erläuterung des deutschen Rechts (Gruchot) 21:551–601

Wurmnest W (2013) Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen im grenzüberschreitenden Kartellprozesss. In: Nietsch M, Weller M (eds) Private Enforcement: Brennpunkte kartellprivatrechtlicher Schadensersatzklagen, Workshop des EBS Law School Research Center for Transnational Commercial Dispute Resolution. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 75–102

Title: Optional Choice of Court Agreements: German National Report
Author: Matthias Weller
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Book: Optional Choice of Court Agreements in Private International Law
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23913-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-23914-5

Copyright Year: 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23914-5_9