Odbor kompatibility s právem ES
Úřad vlády ČR
I S A P
Informační Systém pro Aproximaci Práva
Databáze č. 17 : Databáze judikatury
ă Odbor kompatibility s právem ES, Úřad vlády ČR - určeno pouze pro potřebu ministerstev a ostatních ústředních orgánů

Číslo (Kód CELEX):
Number (CELEX Code):		61993J0299
Název:
Title: 		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (SECOND CHAMBER) OF 6 APRIL 1995.
ERNST BAUER V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES.
ARBITRATION CLAUSE - RESIDENTIAL TENANCY AGREEMENT - DETERMINATION OF THE RENT - TERMINATION - RESTITUTION OF DAMAGE.
CASE C-299/93.
Publikace:
Publication:		European Court Reports 1995 page I-0839
Předmět (klíčová slova):
Keywords
Související předpisy:
Corresponding acts:
Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty:
Corresponding Judgements:
    Feilhauer Case C-209/90 Commission v Feilhauer, [1992] ECR I-2613
Plný text:
Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:
Ernst Bauer, an official of the Commission working for the Joint Research Centre in Ispra, Italy, lived in an apartment rented to him by the Commission. His tenancy agreement with the Commission contained an arbitration clause which provided: “the Court of Justice of the European Communities shall have sole jurisdiction concerning disputes arising under this agreement. The agreement shall be governed by Italian law”.
That provision was inserted in accordance with Article 153 of the Euratom Treaty which is identical with Article 181 of the EC Treaty. However, in a dispute between Mr Bauer and the Commission concerning,
inter alia
the adjustment of the monthly rent, the Court's jurisdiction was called into question on the ground that this was in conflict with Italian law. Article 54 of the Italian law No 392 of 27 July 1978 provides that any clause stipulating that disputes concerning the determination of rent are to be settled by arbitrators is null and void.

Názor soudu a komentář:
While the merits of the case were, in accordance with the contractual agreement, to be decided under Italian law, the question of jurisdiction of the Court was governed by Community law. For the purposes of the present summary, only the latter aspect is of interest; the merits of the case are therefore not being taken into consideration.
Relying on its previous case-law (
Feilhauer
), the Court pointed out that the decision on the Court’s jurisdiction was to be determined solely on the basis of the arbitration agreement on the one hand and the relevant provision of Community law authorizing such arbitration clause - in particular Article 153 Euratom Treaty, Article 181 EEC Treaty - on the other. A national provision, even if it is expressly designed to avoid the Court's jurisdiction, cannot have any influence on this decision.

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):


Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):