Unamar Sample Clauses

Unamar. The Unamar case concerned only choice-of-law agreements and did not tackle the question of jurisdiction. However, it is interesting to mention this judgment in the context of previous interpretation of the ECJ in Trasporti Castelletti and CDC on mutual trust. Unamar, a company incorporated in Belgium (as an agent) and Navigation Maritime Bulgare (“NMB”), a company incorporated in Bulgaria, concluded a commercial agency agreement. The agreement contained an arbitration clause in favour of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Sofia and a clause on the choice of Bulgarian law. Xxxxxx brought proceedings in front of the Antwerp Commercial court, and NMB contested the international jurisdiction of the seized court. Hof xxx Xxxxxxxx requested an answer from ECJ on whether special 193 ECJ, Case C-352/13, Cartel Damage Claims (CDC), par. 129 and 130. 194 ECJ, Case C-352/13, Cartel Damage Claims (CDC), par. 58. 195 ECJ, Case C-352/13, Cartel Damage Claims (CDC), par. 59. 196 ECJ, Case C-352/13, Cartel Damage Claims (CDC), par. 60. mandatory rules of law of the forum exceeding the scope and the level of protection offered by Agency Directive 86/653 may be applied to the contract, even if the law applicable to the contract is the law of another Member State. The ECJ restricted the effect of overriding mandatory rules but also admitted that the Member States have the discretion to designate a mandatory rule as overriding if that rule is based on the directive and exceeds the minimum protection in it.197 Therefore, the ECJ took the opposite approach as in the Trasporti Castelletti and CDC cases and went even further. Party autonomy concerning the choice of law can be restricted based on overriding mandatory rules also between the Member States which implemented the directive, although the mutual trust between the Member States should be guaranteed.