Case number and/or case name
SA Les Aiguilleurs v SA Cofidis [company incorporated in Belgium] and SA Cofidis [company incorporated in France] - Comm. Tournai, 27 February 2014
Summary
The claimant accuses both defendants of unfair trade practices and seeks 400,000 EUR in damages (plus litigation costs). The claimants, Les Aiguilleurs SA, is an independent consultancy, were contacted in 2008, to participate in a competition (which wasn’t remunerated) to develop a new ad campaign for Cofidis. They submitted a project which used helium balloons to represent the ideas for which you could use the credits and loans provided by Cofidis. When, in 2011, the claimant noticed Cofidis used helium balloons on its website, www.cofidis.be, it decided to sue Cofidis Belgique and Cofidis France before the Tribunal de commerce (Commercial Court) of Lille, France. On 6 June 2012, the Commercial Court of Lille declined its jurisdiction because the “alleged harmful event took place exclusively on Belgian territory. The publicity campaign is addressed only to Belgian and Luxembourg residents and does not impact the French public.” Les Aiguilleurs then initiated fresh proceedings before the Belgian Commercial Court of Tournai on 6 November 2012.
The Belgian Court accepts its jurisdiction on the basis of Art. 5 Brussels I. The harmful event occurred in Belgium, more precisely at the corporate seat of Cofidis Belgique in Tournai.
Short critique
While correct, the decision of the Commercial Court of Tournai would have benefited from a more substantial motivation. It seems the Commercial Court of Tournai simply followed the French Commercial Court which ruled first on the case between the parties. We can only assume that the Court believes that the event giving rise to the damage (cf. ECJ case 21/76, Bier v. Mines de Potasse) took place at the corporate seat of Cofidis Belgique, that Cofidis France had a hand in it and that that is why Cofidis France could also be sued in Belgium. Another route would have been to rely on Art. 6(1) Brussels I, since the first of the defendants is a company seated in Belgium.