Facts
The German national [A.] first established banking relations with Bank [X.] in London through the Zurich branch office in 1987. On March 31, 1987 and February 23, 1994, he signed contractual documents containing a jurisdiction clause in favor of the courts at the location of the branch office. On September 30, 2001, the two accounts were settled and converted into a Euro account, the balance of which, according to Bank [X.] 's information, is now EUR 219,847.16 to the debit of [A.] . On May 27, 2011, Bank [X.] in London filed a lawsuit against [A.] with the District Court of Zurich, requesting that he be ordered to pay EUR 219,847.16 plus interest. [A.] disputed the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that this was a consumer matter and that a lawsuit could only be filed at his German domicile. The District Court of Zurich and the High Court of the Canton of Zurich dismissed [A.] 's plea of lack of jurisdiction. They reasoned that [A.] had concluded a formally correct jurisdiction agreement, which generally led to the local jurisdiction of the Zurich courts. [A.] had to prove the requirements for an exception under Art. 15 para. 1 lit. c and Art. 16 para. 2 of the Lugano Convention, which he had failed to do.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower courts. It stated that according to the general principles of the burden of proof, each party must prove the facts on which it bases its rights. Therefore, the defendant [A.] bears the burden of proof for the requirements of the consumer jurisdiction under Art. 15 para. 1 lit. c LugC. A…