PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

NV C. v. SARL C.S. - Kh. Kortrijk, 12 February 2009

Details of the court

Belgium, First Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

11 February 2009

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The defendant failed to enter an appearance. The Court deems that it is not necessary to stay the proceedings pursuant to Art. 26(2) Brussels I Regulation, since the certificate of notification of 16 December 2008 shows that the defendant was able to receive the document instituting the proceedings. The Court examines its jurisdiction of its own motion (cf. Art. 26(1) Brussels I Regulation). The defendant is domiciled in France (cf. domicile of a legal person, Art. 60(1) Brussels I Regulation). In the document instituting the proceedings the claimant bases the jurisdiction of the Court on Art. 5(1)(b), first indent. The claimant alleges that the goods were picked up by the defendant at the warehouse in Dottenijs, Belgium. It appears from the documents submitted to the court (invoices and signed delivery notes) that this was indeed the case. Dottenijs is not situated in the district of Kortrijk (Courtrai), but in the district of Doornik (Tournai). In its decision of 5 December 2008, the Belgian Court of Cassation decided that the “place of delivery of the goods” within the meaning of Art. 5(1) is a factual notion. Art. 5(1)(b) designates the local courts directly. This Article governs both the international jurisdiction and the territorial jurisdiction of the domestic courts. Therefore, the courts of Kortrijk lack jurisdiction. Short critique: the court refers to a decision of the Belgian Supreme Court of 5 December 2008 that is no longer valid in light of the Car Trim judgment of the ECJ. (see short critique of the decision of 5 December 2008) However, in the factual circumstances of the present case, that does not change the outcome. This is a correct application of Art. 5(1)(b) Brussels I Regulation.