Summary
In 2009, the Dutch selling company, sued the Polish buyer for payment of his outstanding invoice. The plaintiff’s claim arose, due to the buyer’s non-fulfilment of the terms of the agreement, as per the contract, for the sale of carrots. According to the agreement the place of performance of the obligation was in the Netherlands, as the place where goods were delivered. The Polish court, in its judgment, found that the plaintiff’s claims were fully justified. However the defendant appealed against the judgement and argued that it is the Dutch court that should have had jurisdiction. He based his assertion on the fact that the place of performance of the obligation was in the Netherlands so Art. 5 point 1(a) should have been applied. Nevertheless, the appellate court confirmed the first-instance judgement and emphasised that the jurisdiction established by virtue of Art. 5 point 1(a) of the Brussels I Regulation is not exclusive. Subsequently, it stated that the court of first instance had jurisdiction under Art. 2 par. 1 of the Brussels I Regulation.