1. Compare Art. 38 et seq. of the German ZPO, and Kropholler, J., in Handbuch des Internationalen Zivilverfahrensrechts, (1982) p. 229 et seq.Google Scholar, and see also Geimer, R., Internationales Zivilprozessrecht (1987) p. 190Google Scholar. In Dutch law, although the statutory provisions are mostly laid down for internal situations, by case law they have been extended to cover international matters. For details, compare, van Rooy, R. and Polak, M.V., Private International Law in the Netherlands (1987) p. 45Google Scholar.

As regards Austrian law, see paras. 88 and 104 of the JN (Jurisdiktionsnorm) of 1895Google Scholar, and e.g., OGH 17 03 1979Google Scholar, JBI (1978) p. 653.Google Scholar

2. For details on French system of international jurisdiction, compare, Holleaux, D., Foyer, J. and de Geouffre de la Pradelle, G., Droit international privé (1987) p. 353 et seq.Google Scholar; Couchez, G., ‘Les nouveaux textes de la proc´dure civile et la comp´tence internationale’, Trav. comité fr. d.i.p. (1977–1979) p. 113 et seq.Google Scholar; see also Cow de cassation 30 10 1962 (arret Scheffel), D. (1963) p. 108.Google Scholar

3. Compare, e.g. Art 3 of the Yugoslav Act on Private International Law of 1982; Art 1(2) of the Swiss Act on Private International Law of 1987; Art 2 of the Czechoslovak Act on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure of 1965; and Art 1096 of the Polish Law on Civil Procedure of 1964. Specifically, priority of the rules of the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of 1968 over contrary national laws regarding some issues on jurisdiction agreements, is established both by the European Court of Justice 13 November 1979 Case no. 25/79 Sanicentral GmbH v. Collin, [1979] ECR 3423; 2 CMLR (1980) p. 164; Case no. 288/82 Duijnstee, /Goderbauer, , [1983] ECR 3674 et seq.Google Scholar; and by different courts of the contracting member countries (e.g., OLG Munich 11 02 1981Google Scholar, IPRspr. 1981 no. 155; Paris Court of Appeal 25 April 1979, JDI (1980) p. 352 et seq.)Google Scholar See further on die relationship of Art 17 of the Brussels Convention, dealing with prorogation of jurisdiction, and national laws, Dashwood, A., Hacon, RJ. and White, R.C.A., A Guide to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgment Convention (1987) p. 123 et seqGoogle Scholar.

It is worth noting that Yugoslavia is undergoing a process of disintegration, and that this has some important consequences for new relations between federal and republican laws. Thus, e.g., in the Republics of Croatia and Slovenia, which declared independence early in June 1991, the republican laws have priority over the federal laws (such as e.g., both the Act on Private International Law and Law on Civil Procedure). However, the latter remain in force, unless they are contrary to the republican Constitutions and newly promulgated republican laws. On the other hand, for the time being (Le., August 1991), it is very difficult to predict how issues on international law succession of Yugoslavia will be resolved.

4. For details of recent legislation regarding company laws in Eastern Europe, compare Sajko, K., ‘Joint Ventures in East European Countries’, 6 Ritsumeikan L. Rev. (1991) p. 101 et seq.Google Scholar

5. In this sense, for qualification according Yugoslav law, see Dika, M., in Komentar zakona o medjunarodnom privatnom i procesnom pravu [Commentary on Act on Private International Law] (1991) p. 184 et seqGoogle Scholar. The depicted qualification is accepted in German case law too, when a jurisdiction agreement refers to the German international jurisdiction (either as prorogatio or derogatio fori, compare, e.g., BGH 20 01 1986Google Scholar, NJW (1986) pp. 1438, 1439Google Scholar; OLG Munich 31 March 1937, WW (1987) p. 480; and BGH 29 02 1968, AWD (1968) p. 233Google Scholar. In Austrian law, die validity of jurisdiction agreements is governed by procedural rules — for details, see StohanzL, R.Jurisdiktionsnorm und Zivilprozeβordnung, 14th edn. (1990) p. 192, E. 19.Google Scholar

In Swiss legal writing, jurisdiction agreements are qualified as contracts sui generis (compare e.g., Reiser, H., Gerichtsstandvereinbarung nach dem IPR-Gesetz (1989) p. 24 et seq.Google Scholar

6. See e.g. Art. 70 of the Yugoslav Law on Civil Procedure of 1976.

7. The Swiss court prorogation refers to disputes of financial interest (Art 5(1) of the Swiss Act on Private International Law); for more about the latter notion see Schnyder, A.K., Das new IPR-Gesetz, 2nd edn. (1990) p. 22 et seqGoogle Scholar. The same limitation is laid down in the German ZPO; the agreements on international jurisdiction, as those on internal courts venue, are valid if they are restricted to vermögensrechtliche Ansprüche. For a definition of that notion, see BGH 22 06 1954Google Scholar, BGHZ pp. 14, 72, 74.Google Scholar

In Polish law (Art 1104 of the Law on Civil Procedure), no restriction ratione loci is provided concerning property claims for the prorogation of domestic courts. A comparison of the scope of jurisdiction agreements with the rules on arbitrability, shows some similarities. For example, pursuant to Art 177(1) of the Swiss Act on Private International Law, a pre-requisite of arbitrability is that a dispute is onafinandal interest. In German (s. 1025 I, ZPO), Austrian(s.577(1) ZPO)and in Yugoslav law (Art 649a(l) of Law on Civil Procedure) disputes are arbitrable if they could be settled by a compromise (scil. Vergleich); that presuposes, La., die authority to dispose with respect to die issues regarding which a compromise might be made.

8. See Arts. 12, 15 and 17(1) of both mentioned Conventions.

9. Compare, Kropholler, , op. cit n. 1, p. 408 et seq.Google Scholar

10. Quite separate issues refer to requirements for the conclusion of the contract (such as questions regarding errors, willful deception, threat, etc.), which are governed by applicable substantive law rules. Further elaboration on these subject is beyond our paper's scope. See further, Chr. Reimman, and Martiny, D., Internationales Vertragsrecht, 4th edn. (1988) p. 1044 et seq.Google Scholar

11. Far such wording, see, e.g., Art 5(1) of the Swiss Act on Private International Law, s. 104(2) of die Austrian JN and Art 17(1) both of Brussels and Lugano Conventions.

Art 49 of the Yugoslav Act on Private International Law applies implicitly to both jurisdiction agreements and jurisdiction clauses. However, with regard to internal venue agreements, in Yugoslav law, die above-mentioned double choice is expressly provided for by Art 70(3) of die Law on Civil Procedure. See also, Dika, , op. cit. n. 5, p. 184.Google Scholar

12. See BGH 1 04 1974Google Scholar, AWD (1974) p. 494Google Scholar; and BGH 30 01 1969Google Scholar, GRUR (1969) p. 373.Google Scholar

13. See Art 97 of the Swiss Act on Private International Law, s. 241 of the German ZPO, Art 56 of the Yugoslav Act on Private International Law and Art 1102(1) of the Polish Law on Civil Procedure.

14. See Art 89(1) of the Yugoslav Act on Private International Law, s. 1146(1) of the Polish Law on Civil Procedure, Art 64(a) of the Czechoslovak Act on Private International Law and Art 70(1) of the Hungarian Act on Private International Law.

15. For further details concerning arbitrability as a requirement of validity of arbitration agreements, see, e.g., Sajko, K., ‘On Arbitration Agreement— Selected Issues’, in Problemy codyfikacji prawa cywilnego [Problems of codification of civil law] (1990) p. 190 et seq.Google Scholar

16. Compare Art 62(1) connected with Art. 55 of the Hungarian Act on Private International Law, Art. 49(1) of the Yugoslav Ac t on Private International Law, Art 5 connected with Art. 114(2) and Art 151(1) of the Swiss Act on Private International Law, and s. 1105(1)(b) of the Polish Law on Civil Procedure. According to the Polish law, such prorogatio fori alieni has also to be valid pursuant to the law of the state from which the courts are prorogated (s. 1105(1)(c)); for details, compare Gralla, E., ‘Das polnische Internationale Zivilverfahrensrecht’, X JfO (1969) p. 196.Google Scholar

17. See Convention with Bulgaria of 1956 (Art. 46(1)(a)), Yugoslav Off.Gaz., International Treaties, No. 1/57; Convention with Romania of 1960 (Art 51(a)), Yugoslav Off.Gaz., International Treaties, No. 8/61; Convention with Poland of 1960 (Art 50(1)(a)), Yugoslav Off.Gaz., International Treaties, No. 5/63.

Yugoslavia and other ex-Communist European states were linked among themselves by such simple bilateral conventions. Sporadically however, they also concluded bilateral conventions on legal aid, jurisdiction and enforcement of courts decisions with other European countries. An example is the Austrian — Polish Agreement on mutual relations in civil matters and on legal documents of 1963, containing both rules on compétence directe and compétence indirecte (Art. 48(1)(a)) et passim — see Austrian Off.Gaz. 1974/79, but without any reference to jurisdiction agreements. See generally, Matscher, F., ‘Zwischenstaatliche Abkommen über den Rechtshilfeverkehr zwischen bürgerlichen und sozialistischen Staaten’, in Zeitgenössische Fragen des internationalen Zivilverfahr ensrechts (1972) p. 355 et seq.Google Scholar

18. See Art. 2(3) of the mentioned German-Austrian Convention (BGB1 1960, II p. 1245).

19. Compare the Convention with Greece of 1959 (Art. 2(a)), Yugoslav Off.Gazz., International Treaties, no. 6/60; the Convention with Czechoslovakia of 1964 (Art. 51(a)), Yugoslav Off.Gaz., International Treaties, no. 13/64.

For details on the Yugoslav international procedural law, see Sajko, K., ‘Das Eurapäische Gerichtsund Vollstreckungsübereinkommen und das Jugoslawische Recht’Google Scholar, the report presented at the Heidelberg International Symposium on the European Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Courts Decisions, February/March 1991, p. 31 et seq., will be published in Jayme, E., ed, Ein internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht für Gesamteuropa (1992) p. 65 et seq.Google Scholar

20. See 11 May 1960, EvB1 (1960) p. 259 and StohanzL, op. cit n. 5, p. 195.Google Scholar

21. See e.g. Art. 49 of the Yugoslav Act on Private International Law, Art 62 of the Hungarian Act on Private International Law.

Art. 37(2) of the Czechoslovak Act on Private International Law prescribes that choice of a Czechoslovak forum may be agreed for disputes of financial interests but thereby no reference to a foreign element is made. It is warm noting that such reference would have been superfluous, since the sole aim of the Act is to regulate international situations (either by its conflict of laws rules or by rules on international procedural law) — see Art. 2 of that Act For further details on Art 37, see Kucera, Z. and Tichỳ, L., Zákon o mezin´rodnim právu soukromén a procesním [Act on International Private and Procedural Law] (1989) p. 221 et seqGoogle Scholar. For scope of application of the Brussels Convention (Art. 171), see e.g., Kropholler, J.. Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht 3rd edn. (1991) p. 178 et seqGoogle Scholar. A foreign element is also a requirement for prorogation of jurisdiction under Art. 17 of the Lugano Convention. However the extent and limit of that element is debatable—compare, Schwander, I., ‘Lugano Übereinkommen, Die Gerichtszuständigkeiten’, St. Gallen Seminar of 31 10 1989, pp. 50 et seq.Google Scholar

22. The same method is often applied for filling of legal gaps in internal Private International Law — see further, e.g., Sajko, K., ‘Der allgemeine Teil des Jugoslawischen IPR Gesetzes, ein rechtsvergleichender Überblick’, in Drei-Länder Symposium (Graz, 1989) p. 11 et seqGoogle Scholar. (to be published in fail 1992).

23. See Art. 1105(1) of the Polish Law on Civil Procedure.

24. For details on English doctrine and case law, see Cheshire, G. and North, P., Private International Law, 11th edn. (1987) p. 222 et seq.Google Scholar

In recent times, however. forum non conveniens theory has gained some ground in other European countries, e.g., in die Netherlands; according to a recent Dutch case, the parties are free to choose a Dutch forum for disputes within their contractual freedom, but only if there is a reasonable basis for this jurisdiction — HR 1 February 1985, NJ 1985 no. 698.

25. Similar arguments against forum non conveniens theory are expressed in Swiss law—compare Schwander, I., Einführung in das IPR, 2nd edn. (1990) p. 318 et seq.Google Scholar, and also in regard to the Brussels Convention — see instead all others, O'Malley, S. and Layton, A., European Civil Practise (1989) p. 558 et seq.Google Scholar