Xxxxxx and National Case Law based on Xxxxxx Sample Clauses

Xxxxxx and National Case Law based on Xxxxxx. Xxxxxx, a company, established in the United Kingdom, entered into an agency contract with Xxxxx, company established in California. The contract was governed by the law of the State of California. Xxxxxx seized the High Court of Justice of England and Wales for post- contractual compensation for damages. California law did not regulate the post-contractual compensation. The ECJ held that the chosen law did not ensure the adequate protection for the commercial agents. Articles 17 and 18 of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents guarantees certain rights to commercial agents after termination of agency contracts. As a consequence, parties cannot deviate from such non-derogable EU rules by opting for a choice-of-law clause. Although the interpretation given in the Xxxxxx case regards the choice-of-law clause, the approach of Xxxxxx was extended by German courts also into choice-of-court clauses. The German courts, unlike common law courts, do not have any discretion to accept jurisdiction in the presence of a valid choice-of-court agreement specifying a foreign forum based on forum non conveniens. On the contrary, according to the German scholar’s doctrine forum non conveniens, also called “appreciation of uncertainty” undermines predictable jurisdiction and 197 For more details, see X. X. XXX XXXXXXX, Overriding mandatory rules as a vehicle for weaker party protection in European private international law, Erasmus Law Review, 7 (2014), p. 149. might be manipulated.198 Thus, the German courts’ dismissal of the claim is inadmissible if the parties reached a valid agreement of exclusive competence. The mandatory derogation of the German courts is ex officio. Nonetheless, the subsequent judgments demonstrate the German courts continued German proceedings despite the valid jurisdiction clause. The national overriding mandatory rules caused the dismissal of valid jurisdiction clauses in favour of courts outside the EU by the German courts due to the choice of a forum with a choice-of-law clause in favour of a Third State whose national law did not provide the same level protection as German law. The first judgment of OLG München on 17 May 2006199 concerned a self-employed commercial agent who was residing and performing an activity in Germany. The contract was governed by California law and contained an exclusive choice-of-court clause in favour of Santa Xxx...