Case C‑436/16

Georgios Leventis
and
Nikolaos Vafeias

v

Malcon Navigation Co. Ltd
and
Brave Bulk Transport Ltd

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Areios Pagos)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 23 — Jurisdiction clause — Jurisdiction clause in a contract between two companies — Action for damages — Joint and several liability of representatives of one of those companies for tortious acts — Ability of the representatives to rely upon that clause)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber), 28 June 2017

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Agreement conferring jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause in a contract between two companies — Clause that cannot be relied upon by representatives of one of those companies to dispute the jurisdiction of a court over an action for damages which aims to render them liable

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 23(1))

Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a jurisdiction clause in a contract between two companies cannot be relied upon by the representatives of one of them to dispute the jurisdiction of a court over an action for damages which aims to render them jointly and severally liable for supposedly tortious acts carried out in the performance of their duties.

Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation clearly indicates that its scope is limited to cases in which the parties have ‘agreed’ on a court. The Court has thus stated that the court before which the matter is brought has the duty of examining, in limine litis, whether the jurisdiction clause was in fact the subject of consensus between the parties, which must be clearly and precisely demonstrated, the purpose of the requirements as to form imposed by Article 23(1) of the Brussels I Regulation being, in that regard, to ensure that consensus between the parties is in fact established (judgment of 7 July 2016, Hőszig, C‑222/15, EU:C:2016:525, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited). Thus, a jurisdiction clause in a contract may, in principle, produce effects only in the relations between the parties who have given their agreement to the conclusion of that contract (judgment of 21 May 2015, CDC Hydrogen Peroxide, C‑352/13, EU:C:2015:335, paragraph 64 and the case-law cited).

(see paras 33-35, 43, operative part)