CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

CYIL 12 (2021) Universal, Regional, and National Ways of Regulation of Jurisdiction … Firstly, jurisdiction agreements are formally valid if both parties have expressed their consent in written form and have signed the agreement. 84 Moreover, the mere exchange of documents (letters, faxes, telegrams, etc.) constitutes “ writing ” and the signature of the parties is unnecessary. 85 As for jurisdiction agreements contained in ST&C, the European Court of Justice ( the ECJ ) in the decision of 19 December 1976, Estasis Salotti di Colzani Aimo e Gianmario Colzani s.n.c. v. Rüwa Polstereimaschinen GmbH , ruled that such agreements are formally valid if the main contract refers to ST&C and the other party could take note of ST&C and the jurisdiction clause. 86 Secondly, the Brussels Ibis Regulation admits jurisdiction agreements evidenced in writing, i.e., oral jurisdiction agreements with subsequent written confirmation by the other party. 87 Thirdly, jurisdiction agreements may be concluded in a form that accords with practices which the parties have established. 88 As Magnus and Mankowski state: “ Practices between the parties require that the parties used to conduct their transactions regularly in a specific way and that this practice had lasted a certain time and had taken place several times .” 89 Next, jurisdiction agreements may be concluded in a form that is shown by international trade usage. 90 International trade usage concerning the conclusion of jurisdiction agreements could be usage as to letters of confirmation and incorporation of jurisdiction agreements towards third parties. 91 Finally, the Brussels Ibis Regulation ranks communication by electronic means as equivalent to “ writing ” if it provides a durable record of jurisdiction agreements. 92 This condition is fulfilled in cases of e-mails, USB sticks, discs, faxes, telexes, etc. 93 Messages on websites, mere messages on the screen, or voice messages, on the other hand, do not provide a durable record of jurisdiction agreements. 94 86 In case law Estasis Salotti di Colzani Aimo e Gianmario Colzani s.n.c. v. Rüwa Polstereimaschinen GmbH , ECJ C-24/76, judgment of 14 December 1976, Paras. 9 and 12. In literature Hrnčiříková, Halla, Malacka, Ryšavý. Mediační, prorogační a rozhodčí doložky o řešení přeshraničních sporů , p. 94. 87 Hrnčiříková, Halla, Malacka, Ryšavý. Mediační, prorogační a rozhodčí doložky o řešení přeshraničních sporů , pp. 95, 96; see also Magnus, U., Mankowski, P. (op. cit. sub 3), p. 641. Rozehnalová, N. et al. Mezinárodní právo soukromé Evropské unie . [ International private law European Union ] Praha: Wolters Kluwer, 2018, p. 246. 88 Art. 25(1)(b) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation; see also see also Hrnčiříková, Halla, Malacka, Ryšavý. Mediační, prorogační a rozhodčí doložky o řešení přeshraničních sporů , p. 97. 89 Magnus, U., Mankowski, P. (op. cit. sub 3), p. 644. 90 Art. 25(1)(c) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. 91 In case law Trasporti Castelletti Spedizioni Internazionali SpA v. Hugo Trumpy SpA , ECJ C-159/97, judgment of 16 March 1999, Paras. 27 and 28. In literature Magnus, U., Mankowski, P. (op. cit. sub 3), p. 648. 92 Art. 25(2) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation; see also Dobiáš, P., Malacka, M. (op. cit. sub 1), p. 113; see also Hrnčiříková, Halla, Malacka, Ryšavý. Mediační, prorogační a rozhodčí doložky o řešení přeshraničních sporů , p. 92. 93 Magnus, U., Mankowski, P. (op. cit. sub 3), p. 650; see also see also Hrnčiříková. Právní prava formy prorogčních doložek na pozadí požadavku písemnosti v mezinárodním právu soukromém , p. 207. 94 Magnus, U., Mankowski, P. (op. cit. sub 3), p. 650. 84 Magnus, U., Mankowski, P. (op. cit. sub 3), p. 636. 85 Id .

409