JURE SUMMARY

X, Y, and Z lived in Belgium. In the scope of a pledging agreement, X guaranteed for company A towards Bank C. The agreement contained a jurisdiction clause in favour of the Luxembourgian courts. Y and Z jointly and severally guaranteed a certain amount for A towards C. Thereupon, bank C granted a loan to A. Upon A's bankruptcy, Y paid a certain amount to C and, as he was subrogated to the latter's rights, he obtained a judgment from the Tribunal d'arrondissement of Luxembourg (LU) ordering X and Z to refund a certain amount to him. X and Z appealed. X challenged the jurisdiction of the Luxembourgian courts. She asserted that the jurisdiction clause only applied to the disputes which could arise between her and C, but not Y and that the clause could not be held against her, as she did not specifically accept it as required by Article 1135-1 of the Luxembourgian civil code. The Cour d'appel (LU) affirms the jurisdiction of the Luxembourgian courts. It holds that Y, as warrantor, was not only subrogated to the rights of the creditor against the debtor but also to the legal remedies which the creditor has, in particular the legal remedy based on the jurisdiction clause in favour of Luxembourg. Consequently, Y was able to avail himself of the jurisdiction clause in dispute. Furthermore, the clause fulfills the prerequisites of Article 17 Brussels Convention. It is thus valid, even if the national preconditions have not been met, as the international provision within Article 17 Brussels Convention supersedes national law regarding that matter.