Agrégateur de flux

Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging
Liberté d'établissement
La directive concernant le détachement de travailleurs effectué dans le cadre d’une prestation de services est applicable aux prestations de services transnationales dans le secteur du transport routier

The author of this post is Franz Kaps, Lawyer at DL Piper, Frankfurt am Main.

To stop the spread of the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic governments closed ports and “non-essential businesses”, restricted travel and imposed “lockdowns” or “stay-at-home” orders. In cases where the COVID-19 pandemic or government measures disrupt commercial contracts, it is necessary to carefully analyze the state of affairs to determine the appropriate remedy. A considerable number of articles have already been written on contracts affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and now it is time to summarize the legal situation for commercial contracts in the most important jurisdictions in a nutshell. This post therefore presents remedies for commercial contracts affected by COVID-19, under the laws of the countries whose systems are most commonly chosen to be applied to commercial contracts, and the CISG.

UK, Hong Kong, Singapore Force Majeure

Force majeure is principally a matter of contract law in the common law jurisdictions England, Hong Kong and Singapore. Whether a force majeure clause is applicable in a particular situation and its consequences depends primarily on the wording of the force majeure clause. A clause modelled, for example, on the 2020 ICC force majeure clause (long form), presumes that an epidemic is a force majeure event; pandemics such as COVID-19 are not expressly mentioned, therefore it will be for the arbitral tribunals and courts to interpret the term “epidemic” under no. 3 (e) ICC to encompass pandemics.

The burden of proof is on the party invoking the force majeure clause as defense. Such a party has to demonstrate that a force majeure event occurred and that it had the stipulated effect on the contractual performance. If a party invokes a force majeure clause in a commercial contract, it releases the party from its contractual obligations when circumstances beyond its control have prevented, hindered or delayed its performance.

In case the COVID-19 pandemic falls within the scope of the force majeure clause, parties should carefully examine whether there are other relevant contractual terms affecting the application of the clause – in particular, whether there are any requirements to notify the other party before invoking the clause.

Frustration

Besides force majeure clauses, the main common law doctrine with potential relevance to the discharge of obligations in the light of unforeseen events – like the COVID-19 pandemic – is frustration. According to it, a contract may be discharged upon the occurrence of an unforeseeable event that either renders the contractual obligation impossible or radically changes the basis upon which the contract was reached. However, it should be noted that the doctrine of frustration has a very limited scope.

Germany Impossibility

Pursuant to Section 275 German Civil Code (BGB) a party is not required to perform its obligations to the extent that performance is impossible. Section 275 German Civil Code applies not only if performance of the obligation is technically or legally impossible, but also in cases where performance is still technically and legally possible, but would require expenses and efforts which, considering the subject matter of the obligation and the requirements of good faith, would be grossly disproportionate to the creditor’s interest of performance. In addition, Section 275 German Civil Code governs temporary impediments, i. e. a claim for performance is excluded as long as performance is impossible. However, German courts respect the legal principle pacta sunt servanda and hence apply Section 275 German Civil Code narrowly, in order not to undermine the agreed contractual obligations.

Frustration of Purpose

The doctrine of “frustration of purpose” (German Störung der Geschäftsgrundlage) can be invoked in cases affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Frustration of purpose under Section 313 German Civil Code will apply where the balance between performance and counter-performance of a contract is significantly changed in a way that was not foreseeable by the parties when the contract was concluded. Such a “frustrated contract” entitles the disadvantaged party to request the amendment of the contract. If an amendment of the contract is not possible or unreasonable, the disadvantaged party may rescind or terminate the contract. According to case law the principle of “contractual loyalty” requires a strict interpretation of Section 313 German Civil Code.

France Force Majeure

Article 1218 French Civil Code addresses the concept of force majeure. According to its Article 1218 , the debtor’s performance is prevented by a force majeure event if three cumulative criteria are met:

1. The event must be beyond the control of the debtor;
2. It must be an event which could not reasonably have been foreseen at the time of the conclusion of the contract; and
3. The effects of the event could not be avoided by appropriate measures.

The legal consequence of Article 1218 French Civil Code is that if performance of the obligation is temporarily prevented, it is suspended unless the delay justifies termination of the contract. In the event of permanent prevention, the contract is terminated by operation of law and the parties are discharged from their obligations.

Hardship

The recently introduced Article 1195 French Civil Code requires renegotiation of a contract if circumstances which were unforeseeable at the time of conclusion of the contract render performance excessively onerous for a party which had not accepted to bear that risk. If renegotiations fail, the parties may agree to terminate the contract, or request a court to revise or terminate the contract.

Switzerland

Swiss law has no statutory provision for force majeure events. In the absence of a force majeure clause in a contract, the applicable legal regime depends on whether the performance of the contract is impossible.

Pursuant to Article 119, 62 Swiss Code of Obligations, the impossibility to perform a contract – due to circumstances not attributable to the debtor – releases both parties from their obligations to perform and leads to the unwinding of the contract according to the rules of unjust enrichment.

In case the impossibility to perform the obligation lasts only for a limited time, the default provisions of Article 107 to 109 Swiss Code of Obligations apply. They provide that if one party is in default, the other party may set an appropriate time limit for the performance. If no performance is rendered during such a time limit, the other party may terminate the contract.

When the performance of a contract is not entirely impossible, but has become extremely onerous, a party may rely on the legal doctrine clausula rebus sic stantibus. It must be a situation which is not only extremely onerous but was also unforeseeable when the contract was concluded. In such circumstances, the parties may agree to amend or terminate the contract. Should one party insist that the contract remains unchanged, the other party may refer the matter before a court. If the requirement of clausula rebus sic stantibus are fulfilled, the court may order an amendment or the termination of the contract.

United States

U.S. contract law is ordinarily a matter of state law. I will focus on New York law, as it is the most commonly chosen by commercial parties to govern their contracts.

Contractual Force Majeure Clauses

Force majeure clauses are contractual provisions that may excuse a party’s non-performance when circumstances beyond the control of a party prevent performance. New York courts have held that force majeure clauses are to be interpreted in a narrow sense and that performance under a contract is ordinarily excused only if the event preventing performance is explicitly mentioned in the force majeure clause.

Subsidiary Solutions

In the absence of a force majeure clause, the common law doctrines of impossibility, impracticability and “frustration of purpose” may excuse performance.

The doctrine of impossibility excuses a party’s performance only when the destruction of the subject matter of the contract or the means of performance makes performance objectively impossible. The impossibility must be produced by an unanticipated event that could not have been foreseen or guarded against in the contract. Impossibility is therefore a narrow legal doctrine.

The doctrine of impracticability is similar to the doctrine of impossibility, but it is more flexible in its application. According to the doctrine of impracticability, a failure to perform contractual obligations is excused, if a party’s performance is made impracticable without its fault by the occurrence of an event the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made. Courts have generally applied the doctrine of impracticability conservatively.

Frustration of purpose is a common law doctrine that excuses a party’s performance under a contract when an unforeseen event renders the contract “virtually worthless” to the affected party. Although a literal performance under the contract is still technically possible, the frustrated purpose must be so completely the basis of the contract that, as both parties understood, without it, the transaction would have made little sense. The threshold of the doctrine of frustration of purpose is high, because performance of the contract must be economically impossible.

United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG)

The CISG is applicable to contracts for the sale of goods between parties who have their place of business in different states, if these states are contracting states or if the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a contracting state and the CISG was not expressly excluded in the contract.

Strict Liability

Contracts for the supply of goods under the CISG are governed by the strict liability of the debtor. It is therefore irrelevant for the liability of the debtor whether they are responsible for the improper performance or the non-performance of their contractual obligation.

Exemption of Liability

In order to mitigate the strict liability of the debtor, Article 79 CISG provides for an exemption from the debtor’s liability if the failure to perform any of their obligations is due to an impediment beyond their control. It is additionally required that they could not reasonably be expected to have taken the impediment into account at the time of conclusion of the contract or to have avoided or overcome the impediment or its consequences. Article 79 CISG is advantageous to the seller. If the non-performance of an obligation to deliver is based on a force majeure event, the seller is released from the obligation to perform the contract for the period of the impediment. Also, the seller is not obliged to pay damages, because the performance is prevented by the force majeure event. However, pursuant to Article 79 para. 4 CISG the seller must inform the buyer of the impediment and its effects on their ability to perform within a reasonable period of time after they have or should have become aware of the impediment. Otherwise, they are liable for damages resulting from such non-receipt. The burden of proof that a contractual obligation was not performed or was delayed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic lies with the debtor.

International practice accepts epidemics as being beyond the debtor’s typical sphere of control. Consequently, the COVID-19 pandemic could constitute a minore ad maius an impediment beyond control according to Article 79 CISG. Whether the COVID-19 virus exempts debtors from their obligation to perform the commercial contract depends on the individual case, since it requires a causal link between the impediment and non-performance.

Takeaway

The impact the COVID-19 pandemic will have on the parties’ commercial contracts depends primary on the wording of their force majeure clause. In case of a force majeure event, the arbitral tribunals and the courts grant the terms of a commercial contract precedence over the applicable law. If a commercial contract does not contain a force majeure clause, or if does not cover pandemics, the applicable laws determine the available remedies. The remedies and requirements under the applicable law for commercial contracts affected by the COVID-19 pandemic differ. National laws have in common that legal doctrines which amend or terminate contractual agreements are narrowly construed. The underlying consideration is that arbitral tribunals and courts are only exceptionally authorized to “rewrite” the contractual obligations of the parties. It is therefore decisive whether the contractual provisions comprise a force majeure clause covering the COVID-19 pandemic. Against this backdrop parties should commercial evaluate – based on the facts of each case – their options to invoke a force majeure defense or to perform, amend, or terminate their commercial contracts.

In light of the high thresholds for a force majeure defense under the applicable law, it is essential to ensure legal certainty by including a force majeure clause in commercial contracts which clearly encompasses epidemics and pandemics. In particular, the party that would be affected by an epidemic or pandemic in the performance of its contractual obligations should assure that such events are expressly referred to in their force majeure clause, to ensure a balanced distribution of risks. Whether the situation is one of an epidemic or a pandemic should be determine by an objective criterion: a declaration by the World Health Organization would be useful to decide when the events under examination trigger the force majeure consequences.

Good starting point for future “tailor-made” force majeure clauses in commercial contracts is the balanced 2020 ICC force majeure proposal. Moreover, as in our globalized world, the next epidemic or pandemic will spread sooner or later, a lege artis force majeure clause must cover epidemics and pandemics.

N’est pas valablement recueilli le consentement au traitement de données personnelles au moyen d’une case cochée par défaut figurant au contrat.

en lire plus

Conventions & Instruments

On 2 November 2020, Jamaica deposited its instrument of accession to the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention. It now has 119 Contracting Parties and will enter into force for Jamaica on 3 July 2021. More information is available here.

On 4 November, the Permanent Bureau was informed that on 26 October 2020, Saint Kitts & Nevis deposited its instrument of accession to the HCCH 1993 Adoption Convention. It now has 103 Contracting Parties and will enter into force for Saint Kitts & Nevis on 1 February 2021. More information is available here.

Meetings & Events

From 12 to 13 November 2020, the HCCH, together with the UNIDROIT and UNCITRAL, co-hosted the 2020 International Conference of the Judicial Policy Research Institute (Rep. of Korea) on International Commercial Litigation. A full recording of the event is available here.

From 16 to 19 November 2020, the Experts’ Group on Jurisdiction met for the fourth time, via videoconference. The meeting focused on the elements to be included on a possible future instrument on direct jurisdiction and parallel proceedings. More information is available here.

Following last month’s Roundtable on the 2019 Judgments Convention co-hosted by the HCCH and the University of Bonn (a pre-cursor to the September 2021 Conference), a full recording of the event is available here.

Publications & Documentation

On 24 November 2020, the Permanent Bureau launched the post-event publication of the inaugural edition of HCCH a|Bridged, of which the focus was the Service Convention in the Era of Electronic and Information Technology. The publication is now available for download in English only. More information is available here.

These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.

On 29 October 2o20, the University of Bonn and the HCCH co-hosted a video roundtable on the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention.This video roundtable explored the prospects of the Convention from a particular perspective, and this was the perspective of the relations between the EU and third states: neighbouring states, trade partners in particular, but also other states. The organisors were very happy to have received a large number of registrations from all over the world and from all areas of interest. The event was also meant to prepare the “main conference” of the organisors on the Convention, which is planned to be taking place at the University of Bonn on site on 13 and 14 September 2021. The recording of the pre-conference video roundtable is now available on the HCCH’s youtube channel as well as here.

For those of us who read German: Jayme and Hausmann have just published the 20th edition of their collection of PIL norms on German national, EU and international level. The book has grown considerably in volume over the decades and has particularly done so for its latest edition – from 1441 to now 1537 pages. An indispensable working tool – even in times of the internet.

This book is devoted to the applicable law to contractual and non-contractual obligations in the European Union as applied before the Courts. It should be a valuable resource for practitioners, the judiciary, and academics who are interested in understanding how EU law is applied on national level. The Rome I and II Regulations are meant to provide for uniform conflict-of-laws rules. In theory, all national courts of EU Member States (excluding Denmark) apply the same rules determining the applicable law. Rome I and Rome II in Practice examines whether the theory has been put into practice and assesses the difficulties that may have arisen in the interpretation and application of these Regulations. The book contains a general report by the editor and a number of national reports.

 

This book is an article-by-article ‘German-style’ commentary on the Rome I, II and III Regulations on European Union (EU) conflict of laws. It describes and systematically explains black letter law as applied by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and the Member State courts.

Access to justice is not a new topic. Since Mauro Cappelletti and Bryant Garth’s survey of different methods to promote access to justice was published (Access to Justice. A World Survey (Giueffre SIJTHOFF 1978), making access to justice cheaper and effective has become a legal policy (see for instance The Right Honourable the Lord Woolf report on Access to Justice, 1996). One of Cappelletti and Garth’s ideas was that there were three waves of access to justice. The third wave, called ‘The Access to Justice Approach’, stated that arbitration would play a significant role in fomenting access to justice. The idea was that people would seek alternatives to the regular court system.  Arbitration has grown exponentially since the publication of Cappelletti and Garth’s work, reaching disputes that were traditionally only decided by courts. The guarantee of adequate access to justice is now generating questions about the impact of this expansion. For purely commercial arbitration, such as one between two multinational companies represented by multinational law firms, waiving some rights of access to justice might not create a problem to the fairness in the arbitral procedure. However, in a dispute in which the inequality of bargaining power is evident, for arbitration to be fair and a trustworthy sustainable dispute resolution method, waiving rights to access to justice might not be the best way forward.

With the above ideas in mind, this book aims at presenting a collection of studies about access to justice in arbitration to present, for the first time, in one single title, an analysis of the role access to justice plays in arbitration. The book makes a unique contribution to the current international research and practice of arbitration as it looks at the conceptual contribution to the notion of access to justice in arbitration; and it provides a picture of how access to justice works in various types of arbitration. In five parts, the book will show the concerns about access to justice in arbitration, how they are materialised in a practical scenario and finally, how it is applied in arbitral institutions.

The book’s first part brings a conceptual contribution to the notion of access to justice in arbitration and deals with theoretical and conceptual gaps in this area. Leonardo V.P. de Oliveira starts with a conceptual analysis of access to justice and how it should be applied in arbitration. Clotilde Fortier looks at consent as the central part of arbitration and how it relates to access to justice. Joao Ilhão Moreira examines if arbitration can provide a fair, independent and accessible dispute resolution mechanism outside large contractual disputes and Ramona Elisabeta Cirlig assesses the interaction between courts and arbitral tribunals as a guarantor of access to justice.

The second part of the book discusses two specific points in investment disputes. Berk Dermikol looks at the possibility of bringing an autonomous claim based on the NYC in investment treaty arbitration as a form of access to justice. Crina Baltag evaluates the issue of access to justice and non-disputing parties – amici curiae– in investment law and arbitration.

In the third part, access to justice in specific types of disputes submitted to arbitration is scrutinised. Carolina Morandi presents a case study of access to justice in labour and employment arbitration in light of the Brazilian and the US experiences. Ian Blackshaw looks at how sports disputes submitted to CAS have been dealing with the question of access to justice. Johanna Hoekstra and Aysem Diker Vanberg examine access to justice with regards to competition law in the EU with a view to determine whether arbitration can lower barriers. Lastly, Youseph Farah addresses the use of unilaterally binding arbitration as a mechanism to improve access to justice in business-related human rights violations.

Part four reports on two aspects of technology and access to justice. Mirèze Philippe looks at ODR as a method to guarantee access to justice whilst Sara Hourani investigates how Blockchain-based arbitration can be used to improve access to justice.

Lastly, the book presents the view of how two arbitral institutions deal with the question of costs and access to justice, and how the rules of one arbitral institution provide access to justice guarantees. Aislinn O’Connell assesses access to justice under WIPO’s Arbitration Rules whilst Christine Sim examines costs at SIAC and Duarte Henriques and Avani Agarwal do the same in relation to ICSID.

The University of Lyon (EDIEC-CREDIP) hosted a webinar (in French) under the title Situations in Motion : Debate on the Method, now available for online viewing.

Jean-Sylvestre Bergé (University of Côte d’Azur and French University Institute, IUF) presented his research project on Situations in motion and the Law, soon to be published in Q1 2021 (Dalloz). The webinar was co-chaired by Ludovic Pailler (University of Lyon) and Cyril Nourissat (University of Lyon) and organised by Marie Brossard and Véronique Gervasoni.

More details here.

I am a bit late with a post as a follow-up to my Tweet, below, re the Supreme Court’s judgment in Highbury Poultry Farm Produce Ltd, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service [2020] UKSC 39. Thankfully, the judgment is of more than fleeting relevance. It is also a good example of the structured approach to legal argument, its discussion in scholarship and its engagement with the parties’ legal arguments which will be missed post Brexit.

A poultry slaughterhouse was being accused of breaching Regulation 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing – the same Regulation at stake in the CJEU Shechita proceedings.

Core issue in the case is whether the EU law at issue implies a requirement for mens rea (criminal intent) in the ability for Member States to discipline its breach. If no means rea is required, the law is one of strict liability.

At 14 Lord Burrows makes the point that the Regulation at issue left it to the Member States to determine the sanctions rolled-out by national law to ensure compliance with the Regulation. Had a Member State decided to deploy civil sanctions only, that would have been fine: criminal law enforcement was not necessary. What follows is a good summary of the authority on means of UK and EU statutory interpretation, with in the case at issue particular emphasis on the impact of recitals: at 51: an unclear recital does not override a clear article.

Conclusion after consideration of the Regulation (the only stain on the analysis being the lack of linguistic input (a fleeting reference at 32 only), given the CILFIT authority on equal authenticity)): that all animals which have been stunned must be bled by incising at least one of the carotid arteries or the vessels from which they arise, is formulated by the Regulation as an obligation of strict liability under EU law. Hence its effet utile requires that Member States that opt for enforcing it via criminal law, employ strict liability in that enforcement.

Reference to the CJEU was neither sought nor seriously contemplated.

Geert.

 

UKSC upholds strict liability
No means rea required, for infringement of EU animal welfare provision Reg 1099/2009, a classic in cases involving stunning of animals
Important observations on requirement of effet utile when imposing criminal sanctions
No CJEU reference: acte clair https://t.co/zydLZUeYop

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 16, 2020

On 8 December 2020 (11am – 2 pm EST), the ABA will host an online seminar on the principles of treaty interpretation, a core skill of every international lawyer.

Leading experts will discuss the goals, principles and challenges of treaty interpretation in a plenary session. Participants will then have the opportunity in a smaller working group to tackle interpretation in one of several pressing areas:

• human rights and the challenges of diplomatic immunity;
• private international law; and
• national security exceptions in trade and investment agreements.

For more information, including registration, click here.

By a judgment of 18 November 2020 in the case Ryanair v DelayFix, the CJEU has ruled that an assignee is not bound to a jurisdiction clause in the contract from which the assigned claim arose. While the ruling concerned the compensation claim of a passenger for a cancelled flight, it is cast in very general terms. It will therefore have far-reaching repercussions for all other cases of assignment of individual claims.

Facts

DelayFix, formerly Passenger Right, is a collection agency for the defence of air passenger rights. It started legal proceedings against Ryanair in Warsaw on the basis of compensation rights assigned to it by a Polish passenger after a cancelled flight. Ryanair contested the Warsaw court’s jurisdiction, relying on a choice-of-forum clause in its general terms and conditions in favour of Irish courts.

In the course of the proceedings, the Regional Court Warsaw submitted to the CJEU the question whether the jurisdiction clause is binding under Art 25 of the Brussels I bis Regulation or whether it is invalid under the Unfair Terms Directive.

Legal Issues

The CJEU split the question in two different issues: (1) Is the collection agency bound by the jurisdiction clause contained in the airline’s standard terms under the Brussels I bis Regulation? (2) Is the jurisdiction clause in the airline’s standard terms unfair within the meaning of the Unfair Terms Directive?

Third-party Effects of Jurisdiction Clauses

With regard to the first question, the CJEU issued a resounding “NO”. It stated at para 46 that

a jurisdiction clause incorporated in the contract of carriage between a passenger and that airline cannot, in principle, be enforced by the latter against a collection agency to which the passenger has assigned the claim.

An exception would exist only where the collection agency is the successor to all the initial contracting party’s rights and obligations (para 47). A case in point is the take-over of a contract, which is however not to be confounded with an ordinary assignment. The CJEU left it for the referring court to determine whether this exception applied in the present case.

The holding was to some extent predictable from earlier case law, see in particular the CJEU judgment in CDC Hydrogen Peroxide or in Refcomp. In these cases, the CJEU had stressed the relative effect of jurisdiction clauses and the freedom to agree on the competent court. The court had ruled that a third party who did not agree to the jurisdiction clause was bound to the latter only if it had succeeded to the original contracting party’s rights and obligations.

Nevertheless, the CJEU case law had identified several situations in which a third party is bound as a legal successor to a jurisdiction clause to which it had not agreed. It was ruled that such a binding effect would exist where a jurisdiction clause is included in the articles of association of a company (see the CJEU judgment in Powell Duffryn), in the prospectus of a bond (see the CJEU judgment in Profit Investment) or in a bill of lading (see e.g. the CJEU judgments in Russ and Coreck).

The literature had assumed that a legal succession would also exist in the event of an assignment and that the jurisdiction clause would therefore also extend to an assignee of a claim (see e.g. Magnus in Magnus and Mankowski (eds) ECPIL Art. 25 Brussels Ibis Regulation para 161; Stadler in Musielak and Voit (eds) ZPO Art. 25 Brussels Ibis Regulation para 4a). The CJEU now takes the opposite position: The assignee of a claim is not bound to a jurisdiction clause in the contract from which or in the context of which the claim arises.

Negative Effects for Agreements on the Jurisdiction of EU Member State Courts

The ramifications of this ruling are significant. For the first time, the CJEU has held that an assignee is not bound by a choice-of-forum agreement between the assignor and the debtor. As a result, the binding effect of jurisdiction clauses will be weakened. It suffices for a creditor to assign a claim to avoid an unpleasant jurisdiction clause in a contract. This behaviour cannot be excluded by a contractual prohibition of assignment because the latter is not always allowed. The ruling thus opens up manifold possibilities to circumvent jurisdiction agreements.

In this context, it must be remembered that the CJEU judgment covers only agreements on the jurisdiction of a Member State court. Jurisdiction agreements in favour of courts of third countries, such as the UK or Switzerland, will be governed by national law, which often considers the assignee to be bound. Arbitration clauses, which are considered binding on the assignee under most national laws, will also remain untouched. In sum, the CJEU has done a great disservice to EU Member State courts. It has given an incentive to choose third state courts and arbitral tribunals in their stead.

Unfairness of Jurisdiction Clauses

With regard to the second question, the CJEU referred to the national court to assess whether the jurisdiction clause in favour of Irish courts was unfair to the Polish passenger. This is understandable given that the Directive needs national transposition and national courts are competent apply the transposing legislation.

There are nevertheless two important takeaways from the CJEU’s judgment with regard to the assessment of unfairness.

First, the Court of Justice did not consider DelayFix – a business enterprise – as being precluded from invoking the unfairness of the clause under the Unfair Terms Directive, although the latter only covers contracts with consumers. The CJEU stresses that the scope of the Directive does not depend on the identity of the parties to the dispute but on the capacity of the parties to the agreement (para 53). Hence the validity of the clause must also be assessed in a subsequent proceeding between two businesses.

Second, the CJEU did not see the consumer protection provisions of the Brussels Ibis Regulation as an obstacle to a finding that the clause were unfair. One could have considered the protection under the Unfair Terms Directive superfluous given that the consumer is anyway protected by the jurisdiction of the courts at its domicile under Art 17 et seq. of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. That is however not the position of the CJEU. Instead, it asks the national court to assess the invalidity of the jurisdiction clause in an abstract manner, independently of the Brussels Ibis Regulation.

As a result, the Unfair Terms Directive may potentially apply to jurisdiction clause in a business-to-business relation. The protection afforded by the CJEU to the assignee seems unwarranted in light of the purpose of unfair terms control, which is targeted to consumers. The second part of the ruling will further weaken the binding force of jurisdiction clauses in B2B relations.