安杰要闻│安杰为德国知名机械制造企业赢得管辖权争议诉讼

近期，安杰律师事务所代理德国知名水泵制造企业KAMAT GmbH & Co. KG（卡玛特泵业有限公司，本案卖方，以下简称“卡玛特公司”），在由北京某机械设备公司（本案买方）提起的六宗国际货物买卖合同诉讼中，成功提出管辖权异议，获得了北京市大兴区人民法院和北京市第二中级人民法院的一审、二审裁定支持。法院裁定本案应由卡玛特公司所在地德国法院管辖，中华人民共和国法院对该系列诉讼案无管辖权。安杰律师事务所国际商事争议解决团队与CMS国际律师事务所和德国RA Schmitz律师事务所共同为卡玛特公司提供此项目法律服务。

本案的争议焦点在于，双方当事人通过数笔单个订单购买的涉案商品是否受框架合同《分销协议》约定的管辖权条款约束。虽然《分销协议》约定，“所有基于该协议或因该协议引起之权利请求的司法管辖地应为制造商注册地”（即德国），但后续订单没有管辖权条款的约定，仅注明了“按照卡玛特公司如下有效条款及条件安排发货（参见www.kamat.de）”，看似无法建立与《分销协议》的联系。

安杰律师通过深入研究双方当事人签订的《分销协议》的具体措辞，并比照涉案的全部订单和相关企业网站内容后，通过扎实的证据材料和严密的说理过程，向本案合议庭证明了：《分销协议》是双方签订订单的基础，且订单明确指向了《分销协议》，本案应适用《分销协议》中的管辖权约定。最终，以上管辖权异议得到了一审、二审两级法院的支持，法院裁定该系列争议案应由卡玛特公司所在地德国法院管辖，中华人民共和国法院对该系列诉讼无管辖权。

本案还涉及到争议解决条款的独立性及国际私法中的法律适用问题。安杰律师与CMS国际律师事务所和德国RA Schmitz律师事务所密切合作，通过提交一系列证据材料和专业意见，证明无论在中国法项下还是德国法项下，合同中的争议解决条款都具有独立性，不因合同发生争议、变更、解除、终止或者无效等事由而失去效力。

安杰国际商事争议解决团队一直力求通过最小的成本为客户争取最大的利益，安杰律师将继续以帮助客户高效解决争议为己任。德国当事人对安杰高效专业的法律服务表示满意，对中国法院尊重当事人意思自治、公正裁决管辖权争议的做法表示赞赏。

AnJie Prevailed in a Series of Jurisdictional Disputes while Representing a Leading German Enterprise

AnJie Law Firm successfully challenged the jurisdiction of a Chinese court in six cases concerning international contracts for the sale of goods. AnJie represented a well-known German pump manufacturer, KAMAT GmbH & Co. KG. The opposing party was the buyer in the transaction. The plaintiff-buyer, a Beijing-based machinery and equipment company, initiated these six cases in 2015. After two years’ proceedings, Beijing Daxing People’s Court supported AnJie's client, KAMAT, in the first instance. Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Courtupheld the opinion. Both courts ruled that German courts would decide the cases. They determined since the "Distributor Agreement" stipulates the jurisdiction of the German court at the domicile of KAMAT, the courts of People’s Republic of China would have no jurisdiction over any of the cases. CMS China and RA Schmitz in Germany cooperated with AnJie Law Firm’s International Commercial Dispute Resolution Team in our representation of KAMAT.

The cases revolved around a central question: were the goods the plaintiff purchased over several single orders governed by the "Distributor Agreement" . That Agreement purported to set the jurisdictional provisions of the framework contract. AnJie lawyers summoned evidence and reason to prove to the collegial panel that the “Distributor Agreement” was the basis upon which both parties would accomplish each order. AnJie presented an in-depth study of the specific wording of the “Distributor Agreement” concluded by both parties. AnJie further compared all the orders involved and the contents of the related KAMAT website (www.kamat.de).The Courts identified thatthe cases were to be governed by German courts because the parties had so agreed in the “Distributor Agreement”.

The cases also involve the independence of the dispute resolution clauses and the law application of international private law. In close cooperation among AnJie, CMS and RA Schmitz in Germany, with the submission of a series of evidence and professional advices, AnJie convinced the court ofthe independent of dispute resolution clause under Chinese and German law, regardless of the termination or invalidation of the underlying contract.

We, AnJie's International Commercial Dispute Resolution Team, have dedicated our professional efforts to provide value to our clients at reasonable cost. With the sense of responsibility, AnJie will continue to help all the clients resolve disputes efficiently. KAMAT has expressed its satisfaction with both AnJie's representation as well as the stead fast recognition of Chinese Courts of the autonomy of parties and their right to select the governing jurisdiction within their agreements.