F Berghoefer GmbH and Co KG v ASA SA: ECJ 11 Jul 1985

Brussels Convention – Interpretation of Article 17 – Validity of an oral jurisdiction agreement confirmed in writing by one party only.
‘It must be pointed out that . . article 17 of the Convention does not expressly require that the written confirmation of an oral argument should be given by the party who is to be affected by the agreement. Moreover, as the various observations submitted to the Court have rightly emphasized, it is sometimes difficult to determine the party for whose benefit a jurisdiction agreement has been concluded before proceedings have actually been instituted.
If it is actually established that jurisdiction has been conferred by express oral agreement and if confirmation of that oral agreement by one of the parties has been received by the other and the latter has raised no objection to it within a reasonable time thereafter, the aforesaid literal interpretation of article 17 will also, as the Court has already decided in another context . . be in accordance with the purpose of that article, which is to ensure that the parties have actually consented to the clause. It would therefore be a breach of good faith for a party who did not raise any objection subsequently to contest the application of the oral agreement.’


C-221/84, R-221/84, [1985] EUECJ R-221/84, [1985] ECR 2699



Cited by:

CitedBols Distilleries VB (T/A As Bols Royal Distilleries) and Another v Superior Yacht Services Ltd PC 11-Oct-2006
(Gilbraltar) The parties disputed the management contract for a racing yacht, and also the juridiction of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar to hear the case. Bols said that under regulation 2(1) Gibraltar had no jurisdiction.
Held: The English . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.133963