PURPOSE WAS TO PROTECT THE INSURED WHO IS MOST FREQUENTLY FACED WITH A PREDETERMINED CONTRACT THE CLAUSES OF WHICH ARE NO LONGER NEGOTIABLE AND WHO IS IN A WEAKER ECONOMIC POSITION .
18 MOREOVER , ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONVENTION ALLOWS THE PARTIES TO DEPART FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3 ' ' BY AN AGREEMENT . . . ( 2 ) WHICH ALLOWS THE POLICY-HOLDER , THE INSURED OR A BENEFICIARY TO BRING PROCEEDINGS IN COURTS OTHER THAN THOSE INDICATED IN THIS SECTION ' ' . IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE CONVENTION HAS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF STIPULATING CLAUSES CONFERRING JURISDICTION NOT ONLY IN FAVOUR OF THE POLICY-HOLDER , BEING A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT , BUT ALSO IN FAVOUR OF THE INSURED AND THE BENEFICIARY WHO MAY NOT BE PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT WHEN , AS IN THE PRESENT CASE , THEY ARE DIFFERENT PERSONS WHOSE IDENTITY MAY EVEN BE UNKNOWN WHEN THE CONTRACT IS SIGNED .
19 CONSEQUENTLY IF THE REQUIREMENT AS TO FORM REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 17 WERE TO BE REGARDED AS REQUIRING THE INSURED OR BENEFICIARY , NOT BEING A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT BUT A PERSON FOR WHOSE BENEFIT THE CLAUSE CONFERRING JURISDICTION IS MADE , EXPRESSLY TO SIGN THE SAID CLAUSE SO AS TO VALIDATE IT AND TO ENTITLE HIM TO RELY ON IT , THE EFFECT OF SUCH AN INTERPRETATION WOULD BE TO PLACE ON THE LATTER , IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ORIGINALLY THE INSURER HAS UNEQUIVOCALLY GIVEN HIS CONSENT TO AN OPEN AND GENERAL SYSTEM OF EXTENSION OF JURISDICTION , A POINTLESS RESTRICTION AMOUNTING EVEN , IT MAY BE , TO A FORMALITY WITH WHICH IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO COMPLY IF , BEFORE ANY PROCEEDINGS , THE INSURED HAS NOT BEEN INFORMED BY THE POLICY-HOLDER OF THE EXISTENCE OF A CLAUSE CONFERRING JURISDICTION WHICH HAS BEEN MADE FOR HIS BENEFIT .
20 IT FOLLOWS FROM ALL THE FOREGOING THAT THE ANSWER SHOULD BE THAT WHERE IN A CONTRACT OF INSURANCE A CLAUSE CONFERRING JURISDICTION IS INSERTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE INSURED WHO IS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT BUT A PERSON DISTINCT FROM THE POLICY-HOLDER , IT MUST BE REGARDED AS VALID WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 17 OF THE CONVENTION PROVIDED THAT , AS BETWEEN THE INSURER AND THE POLICY-HOLDER , THE CONDITION AS TO WRITING LAID DOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN SATISFIED AND PROVIDED THAT THE CONSENT OF THE INSURER IN THAT RESPECT HAS BEEN CLEARLY AND PRECISELY MANIFESTED .
2 . SECOND QUESTION
21 AS REGARDS THIS QUESTION IT IS SUFFICIENT TO RECALL THAT THE COURT IN ITS JUDGMENTS OF 24 JUNE 1981 IN CASE 150/80 ELEFANTEN SCHUH GMBH ( 1981 ) ECR 1671 , OF 22 OCTOBER 1981 IN CASE 27/81 ROHR ( 1981 ) ECR 2431 AND OF 31 MARCH 1982 IN CASE 25/81 CHW ( 1982 ) ECR 1189 HAS RECOGNIZED THAT ARTICLE 18 OF THE CONVENTION MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT IT ALLOWS A DEFENDANT