NEKOLIKO NAPOMENA O UGOVORU O TRGOVINSKOM ZASTUPANjU IZ UGLA MEĐUNARODNOG PRIVATNOG PRAVA SRBIJE

Abstract

This paper analyzes the influence of mandatory rules of EU Member States on commercial agent’s right to indemnity/compensation (which come from Art. 17 and 18 of Directive 86/653/EEC) on determining the law applicable to commercial agency contract in accordance with the conflict-of-law rules of Serbian Private International Act as well as on jurisdiction (prorogation) clause in favor of Serbian courts. Considering that these mandatory rules are usually classified as overriding mandatory rules which apply irrespective of which law is applicable to an agency contract, the author analyzes two situations in which their application can emerge: the first situation relates to the cases in which a principal has seat in EU Member State and an agent has seat in Serbia; the second situation relates to the cases in which a principal has seat in Serbia and an agent has seat in EU Member State. After that, author explains that the courts of EU Member States dismiss the jurisdiction clauses by which the courts of non-Member States have been prorogated, if these courts would not apply the rules which secure the same or similar level of protection for commercial agents as those of Directive 86/653/EEC. Bearing this in mind, author also analyzes whether the courts of EU Member States would recognize the effects of prorogation of Serbian courts in such cases.