Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2000:606
Date: 2000-11-09
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Fifth 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: Agreements of jurisdiction – Scope, content and effects
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments — Prorogation of 
jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause — Parties' consent — Criteria — Need to formu­
late the clause so that the court having jurisdiction can be determined on its wording 
alone — No such need 
(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 17) 
I - 9337 
SUMMARY — CASE C-387/98 
2. Convention on jurisdiction and the Enforcement of judgments — Prorogation of 
jurisdiction — Scope of the first paragraph of Article 17 — Clause entered into by at 
least one party domiciled in a Contracting State conferring jurisdiction on a court in a 
Contracting State 
(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 17) 
3. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of judgments — Prorogation of 
jurisdiction — jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading — Enforceability as against third 
party bearer — Conditions 
(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 17) 
1. The words 'have agreed' in the first 
sentence of the first paragraph of 
Article 17 of the Convention of 
27 September 1968 on jurisdiction 
and the enforcement of judgments in 
civil and commercial matters cannot be 
interpreted as meaning that it is neces­
sary for a jurisdiction clause to be 
formulated in such a way that the 
competent court can be determined on 
its wording alone. It is sufficient that 
the clause state the objective factors on 
the basis of which the parties have 
agreed to choose a court or the courts 
to which they wish to submit disputes 
which have arisen or which may arise 
between them. Those factors, which 
must be sufficiently precise to enable 
the court seised to ascertain whether it 
has jurisdiction, may, where appropri­
ate, be determined by the particular 
circumstances of the case. 
(see para. 15 and operative part 1) 
2. Article 17 of the Convention of 
27 September 1968 on jurisdiction 
and the enforcement of judgments in 
civil and commercial matters only 
applies if, first, at least one of the 
parties to the original contract is dom­
iciled in a Contracting State and, 
secondly, the parties agree to submit 
any disputes to a court or the courts of 
a Contracting State. 
A court situated in a Contracting State 
must, if it is seised notwithstanding a 
jurisdiction clause designating a court 
in a third country, assess the validity of 
the clause according to the applicable 
law, including conflict of laws rules, 
where it sits. 
(see paras 19, 21 and operative part 2) 
I - 9338 
CORECK 
3. The first paragraph of Article 17 of the 
Convention of 27 September 1968 on 
jurisdiction and the enforcement of 
judgments in civil and commercial 
matters must be interpreted as meaning 
that a jurisdiction clause agreed 
between a carrier and a shipper which 
appears in a bill of lading is enforceable 
against a third party bearer of the bill 
of lading if he succeeded to the rights 
and obligations of the shipper under 
the applicable national law when he 
acquired the bill of lading. If he did 
not, it must be ascertained whether he 
accepted that clause having regard to 
the requirements laid down in that 
provision. 
(see para. 27 and operative part 3) 
I - 9339