Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:1997:337
Date: 1997-07-03
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968;Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 - Jurisdiction
Concepts: Jurisdiction in matters of consumer contracts – Rules of jurisdiction;Agreements of jurisdiction – Scope, content and effects
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment
1. Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments — Jurisdiction in respect of
contracts concluded by consumers — Concept of 'consumer' — Plaintiff who has concluded a
contract with a view to pursuing a trade or profession in the future — Excluded
(Convention of 27 September 1968, Arts 13, first para., and 14, first para., as amended by the
Accession Convention of 1978)
I - 3767
SUMMARY — CASE C-269/95
2. Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments — Prorogation of jurisdiction
— Agreement conferring jurisdiction — Scope of the exclusive jurisdiction of the court desig­
nated — Action to have the main agreement declared void — Included
(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 17, first para.)
1. In the context of the specific regime
established by Article 13 et seq. of the
Convention of 27 September 1968 on
jurisdiction and the enforcement of judg­
ments in civil and commercial matters,
only contracts concluded for the purpose
of satisfying an individual's own needs in
terms of private consumption come under
the provisions designed to protect the
consumer as the party deemed to be the
weaker party economically. On the other
hand, the specific protection sought to be
afforded by those provisions is unwar­
ranted in the case of contracts for the
purpose of trade or professional activity,
even if that activity is only planned for
the future, since the fact that an activity is
in the nature of a future activity does not
divest it in any way of its trade or profes­
sional character. It follows that the regime
in question applies solely to contracts
concluded outside and independently of
any trade or professional activity or pur­
pose, whether present or future, so that a
plaintiff who has concluded a contract
with a view to pursuing a trade or profes­
sion, not at the present time, but in the
future may not be regarded as a consumer
within the meaning of the first paragraph
of Article 13 and the first paragraph of
Article 14 of the Convention.
2. Article 17 of the Convention of 27 Sep­
tember 1968 on jurisdiction and the
enforcement of judgments and civil and
commercial matters sets out to designate,
clearly and precisely, a court in a Con­
tracting State which is to have exclusive
jurisdiction in accordance with the con­
sensus formed between the parties, which
is to be expressed in accordance with the
strict requirements as to form laid down
therein. The legal certainty which that
provision seeks to secure could easily be
jeopardized if one party to the contract
could frustrate that rule simply by claim­
ing that the whole of the contract which
contained the clause was void on grounds
derived from the applicable substantive
law. It follows that the court of a Con­
tracting State which is designated in a
jurisdiction clause validly concluded
under the first paragraph of Article 17
also has exclusive jurisdiction where the
action seeks in particular a declaration
that the contract containing that clause is
void. Furthermore, it is for the national
court to determine which disputes fall
within the scope of the clause conferring
jurisdiction invoked before it and, conse­
quently, to determine whether that clause
also covers any dispute relating to the
validity of the contract containing it.
I - 3768