The recent judgment of the District Court Groß-Gerau offers an instructive illustration of the complex internaction between the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR), the Brussels I Regulation and the Rome I Regulation in cross-border transport disputes.
I. Introduction
Cross-border road transport disputes within the EU frequently raise questions concerning jurisdiction, applicable law and the limits of party autonomy. In its judgment of 10 May 2026 (61 C 1107/25), the District Court Groß-Gerau addressed those issues in a dispute between a Polish carrier and a Lithuanian freight forwarder concerning demurrage claims arising from an international transportation.
Although the amount in dispute was rather modest (EUR 500), the decision is legally significant because it clarifies the following two issues:
- The invalidity of exclusive jurisdiction clauses that conflict with Art. 31 CMR, and
- The continued effectiveness of a choice-of-law clause despite the invalidity of the jurisdiction agreement contained in the same contractual provision.
This judgment also demonstrates the procedural risks parties face when relying on foreign law without properly substantiating their claims before a German court. The German principle of burden of proof and the parties’ obligation to sufficiently plead the facts on which they rely was decisive in this case.
II. The Facts
The defendant, a Lithuanian logistics company, commissioned the Polish claimant to transport goods from the Czech Republic to Germany for an agreed freight charge. The transport contract contained a clause providing that disputes should be resolved before the courts of Lithuania at the defendant’s registered office. The same clause further stipulated that Lithuanian civil law would apply to matters not governed by the agreement.
Following the transport, the claimant demanded EUR 500 in demurrage compensation for an alleged waiting time of 14 hours exceeding the agreed free loading period. The claimant relied essentially on Section 412 (3) of the German Commercial Code (HGB), which grants carriers compensation for excessive detention time.
The defendant contested both jurisdiction and the substantive claim, arguing that the Lithuanian courts had exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to the contractual jurisdiction clause and Lithuanian law was applicable and did not provide for a claim comparable to Section 412(3) HGB.
III. The Legal Issues
- Invalidity of the Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause under Art. 31 CMR
The court first examined whether it had international jurisdiction despite the contractual forum selection clause in favour of Lithuanian courts.
The transport in question fell within the scope of the CMR because it concerned an international carriage of goods by road between two Contracting States, namely the Czech Republic and Germany. The crucial point lies in the court’s interpretation of Art. 31 (1) CMR, namely that it permits parties to agree on additional competent courts but prohibits agreements that exclude courts otherwise competent under the Convention or applicable EU jurisdictional rules.
The court therefore held that the clause designating Lithuanian courts exclusively was invalid because it excluded the jurisdiction of the courts at the place of delivery, which otherwise existed under Art. 7 (1) (b) Brussels I Regulation. Consequently, the German court at the place of delivery retained jurisdiction despite the contractual clause.
2. Severability of Jurisdiction and Choice-of-Law Clauses
While the jurisdiction agreement was held invalid, the court nevertheless upheld the contractual choice of Lithuanian law.
The court applied the principle of severability to the contractual clauses, holding that the invalidity of the jurisdiction clause did not automatically invalidate the accompanying choice-of-law provision. Both elements of the relevant clause could be separated linguistically and substantively. Therefore, the court assessed the validity of the choice-of-law agreement independently under Art. 3 Rome I Regulation.
As international logistics frequently combine jurisdiction and choice-of-law provisions in one single clause, the invalidity of one automatically infecting the other would substantially undermine legal certainty in international commerce.
3. Broad Interpretation of the Choice of Lithuanian Law
An interpretive issue arose because the clause referred specifically to “the provisions of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania” rather than Lithuanian law as a whole. The court adopted a broad interpretation of this clause. It held that a reference to a specific part of a national legal system generally implies a tacit choice of the entire legal system unless the parties clearly intended otherwise. No such restrictive intention could be inferred in the present case.
4. Procedural Consequences of Failing to Substantiate Foreign Law
Section 293 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) stipulates that German courts must determine foreign law ex officio. However, the parties remain under an obligation to cooperate in establishing the content of foreign law.
In this instance, the claimant failed to discharge this burden, so the court accepted the defendant’s presentation of Lithuanian law and dismissed the claim.
The judgment thus highlights a recurring practical issue in international litigation: parties invoking claims under foreign law must actively assist the court in determining the content of that law. Merely relying on domestic legal concepts will often prove insufficient.
IV. Conclusion
The judgment of District Court Groß-Gerau is concise but is a legally sophisticated contribution to European transport law.
The court correctly reaffirmed the mandatory nature of Art. 31 CMR and clarified that exclusive jurisdiction clauses excluding otherwise competent courts are invalid. At the same time, it appropriately preserved the effectiveness of the parties’ choice-of-law agreements under the Rome I Regulation.