- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-537/23, Società Italiana Lastre: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 February 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation – France) – Società Italiana Lastre SpA (SIL) v Agora SARL (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Article 25(1) – Agreement conferring jurisdiction – Assessment of the validity of the agreement – Imprecise and asymmetric nature – Applicable law – Concept of null and void as to its substantive validity)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023CA0537
62023CA0537
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C series
—
C/2025/2050
14.4.2025
(Case C-537/23,
Società Italiana Lastre)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 25(1) - Agreement conferring jurisdiction - Assessment of the validity of the agreement - Imprecise and asymmetric nature - Applicable law - Concept of ‘null and void as to its substantive validity’)
(C/2025/2050)
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant in cassation: Società Italiana Lastre SpA (SIL)
Respondent in cassation: Agora SARL
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
must be interpreted as meaning that in the context of assessing the validity of an agreement conferring jurisdiction, complaints alleging the imprecision or asymmetry of that agreement must be examined not in the light of criteria relating to matters which cause that agreement to be ‘null and void as to its substantive validity’ defined by the law of the Member States in accordance with that provision, but in the light of autonomous criteria which are derived from that article.
2.Article 25(1) and (4) of Regulation No 1215/2012
must be interpreted as meaning that an agreement conferring jurisdiction pursuant to which one of the parties thereto may only bring proceedings before the sole court that it designates whereas it permits the other party to bring proceedings before, in addition to that court, any other competent court, is valid, in so far as, first, it designates courts of one or several States which are either Members of the European Union or parties to the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed on 30 October 2007, the conclusion of which was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2009/430/EC of 27 November 2008, secondly, it identifies objective factors which are sufficiently precise to enable the court seised to ascertain whether it has jurisdiction, and, thirdly, it is not contrary to the provisions of Articles 15, 19 or 23 of that regulation and does not derogate from an exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to Article 24 thereof.
—
(1) OJ C C/2023/956.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2050/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—