The Court delivered a few days ago (8 March 2018), its judgment in case C‑64/17 (Saey Home & Garden NV/SA v Lusavouga-Máquinas e Acessórios Industriais SA), which is about Brussels I bis:
“1. Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the verifications to be made by the referring court, a jurisdiction clause […] set out in the general conditions of sale mentioned in invoices issued by one of the contracting parties does not satisfy the requirements of that provision.
2. Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the court with jurisdiction, by virtue of that provision, to hear a claim for compensation relating to the termination of a commercial concession agreement concluded between two companies established and operating in two different Member States for the distribution of goods on the domestic market of a third Member State in which neither of those companies has a branch or establishment, is that of the Member State in which the place of the main supply of services, as is clear from the provisions of the contract and, in the absence of such provisions, the actual performance of that contract, and where it cannot be determined on that basis, the place where the agent is domiciled”.