Jurisdiction agreement

A choice of court agreement is a contractual clause in which the parties specify which court is to have jurisdiction to decide on disputes arising from the contract. It serves to provide clarity in advance about the place of legal action and to better assess the risks and costs associated with legal proceedings. It serves to provide clarity in advance about the place of legal action and to better assess the risks and costs associated with legal proceedings. Jurisdiction agreements are common in many areas of commercial law, but are particularly important in the IT and media industry due to the frequently cross-border business relationships.

Legal basis:

1. admissibility: The possibility of concluding jurisdiction agreements arises from Section 38 ZPO. The provisions of the Brussels Ia Regulation and the Lugano Convention apply to international matters. (2) Formal requirements: Agreements on jurisdiction must always be concluded in writing or in another form that satisfies the written form requirement (Section 38 (2) ZPO). 3. restrictions: In certain cases, in particular in consumer matters and employment matters, jurisdiction agreements are only permissible to a limited extent (Sections 38 (3), 40 ZPO).

Types of jurisdiction agreements:

1. exclusive jurisdiction agreement: the parties agree that one court has exclusive jurisdiction. Other courts then no longer have jurisdiction. 2. optional jurisdiction clause: the parties agree on an additional competent court without excluding the jurisdiction of other courts. 3. asymmetrical jurisdiction clause: One party (usually the stronger contracting party) has the choice between several jurisdictions, while the other party is limited to one jurisdiction.

Advantages and disadvantages:

1. legal certainty: Agreements on the place of jurisdiction provide clarity on the place of prosecution and thus facilitate risk assessment. 2. specialization: the parties can choose a court that is particularly familiar with the subject matter (e.g. special chambers for IT law). 3. cost control: by choosing a nearby court, travel and legal costs can be reduced. 4. language barriers: For international contracts, choosing a court in a particular country can present language problems. 5. enforceability: enforcing a judgment can be difficult if the agreed court is in a different country.

Special features in the IT and media industry:

1. international matters: Due to the global nature of many IT and media transactions, jurisdiction agreements are particularly relevant here. 2. specialized courts: Some courts have set up special chambers for IT law or intellectual property law, which offer special expertise. 3. arbitration proceedings: Arbitration tribunals are often agreed in the industry as an alternative to state courts. 4. consumer protection: In the case of contracts with consumers, jurisdiction agreements are only permitted under strict conditions. 5. data protection: In the event of disputes concerning the processing of personal data, choice of court agreements may be restricted by Art. 79 GDPR.

Design recommendations:

1. clarity: the clause should be clearly worded and leave no room for interpretation. 2. appropriateness: The agreed place of jurisdiction should have an appropriate relationship to the contract and the parties. 3. consumer protection: In contracts with consumers, the narrow limits for jurisdiction agreements must be observed. 4. relationship to other clauses: The interaction with choice of law and arbitration clauses should be considered. 5. check enforceability: The possibility of enforcing a judgment in the agreed place of jurisdiction should be examined.

Conclusion:

Jurisdiction agreements are an important instrument for drafting contracts in the IT and media industry. They can create legal certainty, but also harbor risks, particularly in international situations. The decision for or against a jurisdiction clause and the specific drafting of the clause require careful consideration of the advantages and disadvantages, taking into account the specific circumstances of the contract and the parties. In any case, the clause should be formulated clearly and unambiguously in order to avoid subsequent disputes over jurisdiction.