EUPillar AG Trier, 11.3.2005

Summary

The parties argued about a payment claim from a purchase contract. The defendant brought a counter-claim regarding damages from another contract within the business relationship between the parties. It was doubtful whether German courts were internationally competent pursuant to Art. 6 no. 3 Brussels I. The court held that German courts didn’t have international jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 6 no. 3 Brussels I. It wasn’t sufficient that the counter-claim had been raised within the business relation between the parties. The rule had to be interpreted autonomous and restrictively. It didn’t apply if the disputed claims concerned different purchase contracts. The wording of Art. 6 no. 3 Brussels I (‘the same contract’) supports the court’s interpretation. In the present case the claims didn’t concern the same contract. However, in German scientific literature this point isn’t assessed uniformly. Some say that a business relationship between the parties was sufficient to assume ‘the same contract’ within the meaning of Art. 6 no. 3 Brussels I. The view mostly held is that a business relationship wasn’t sufficient but solely apportioned contracts were included by the term ‘the same contract’. It would have been useful to make a preliminary reference to the CJEU.