14.12.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/12

(Case C-184/12) (<span class="super">1</span>)

(Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations - Articles 3 and 7(2) - Freedom of choice of the parties - Limits - Mandatory rules - Directive 86/653/EEC - Self-employed commercial agents - Contracts for sale or purchase of goods - Termination of the agency contract by the principal - National implementing legislation providing for protection going beyond the minimum requirements of the directive and providing also for protection for commercial agents in the context of contracts for the supply of services)

2013/C 367/19

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: United Antwerp Maritime Agencies (UNAMAR) NV

Defendant: Navigation Maritime Bulgare

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Articles 3 and 7(2) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1), and 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 (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17) — Freedom of choice of the parties — Limits — Commercial agency contract — Clause designating the law of the State of the principal to be the applicable law — Bringing of a case before the court of the commercial agent’s place of establishment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 3 and 7(2) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 must be interpreted as meaning that the law of a Member State of the European Union which meets the minimum protection requirements laid down by 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 and which has been chosen by the parties to a commercial agency contract may be rejected by the court of another Member State before which the case has been brought in favour of the law of the forum, owing to the mandatory nature, in the legal order of that Member State, of the rules governing the situation of self-employed commercial agents, only if the court before which the case has been brought finds, on the basis of a detailed assessment, that, in the course of that transposition, the legislature of the State of the forum held it to be crucial, in the legal order concerned, to grant the commercial agent protection going beyond that provided for by that directive, taking account in that regard of the nature and of the objective of such mandatory provisions.

(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.