regulation since the parties are from different states and the dispute related to commercial matters as we can see in the article 1 which mentions the scope of this regulation.
Article 2 of the Brussels Regulation gave a general provision that gives a claimant the right to sue in a country where he is domiciled whatever his nationality is. Section 2 of Article 2 says that the rules of jurisdiction applicable to nationals of that state will be applied in such cases.
Article 60 mentions that for the purpose of the Brussels Regulation, a company’s nationality will be deemed to be the state where it has its statutory seat, or central administration, or principal place of business. According to section 2 of this article means of statutory seat in England and Ireland which is the registered office or, the place of incorporation or the place under the law of which the formation took place.
This article add extra jurisdiction for the member state. In the case of sale of goods, a claimant can sue in the different state in some case one of them which mention in section 1 (b) in this article which gave jurisdiction to the place where the goods are delivered or should be delivered.
Article 23 in Brussels Regulation left its optional for the parties domiciled in member state. They have a choice as to which court or courts have jurisdiction to try and decide any dispute that may arise between the parties in connection with a particular legal relationship. But this choice is subject to certain condition. One of the conditions is that there must be an agreement to this effect between the parties. Further, according to the provisions of the regulation, this agreement must be in writing or evidenced in writing.
Applying article 23 of the Brussels regulation on the fact of this case it can be said that only the German courts have jurisdiction that is the right to settle the dispute. This is so because of two reasons
3) Despite the above jurisdiction clause, Black horse