EUPillar B.-R. N.V. v. T. B.V. - 02/3871 - Kh. Hasselt, 4 December 2002

Summary

The claim relates to the unpaid purchase price of sales made by a Belgian seller to a Dutch buyer. The general invoicing terms and conditions provide that the courts of the district of Hasselt, Belgium are exclusively competent to take cognisance of disputes resulting from the agreements to which the invoices relate. The general terms and conditions of the seller also provide that payment should be made at the institutions of the claimant in Tessenderlo, Belgium unless otherwise agreed. On the front of the invoice, a Belgian and Dutch bank account are indicated. It is unclear where the delivery took place. The claimant does not submit evidence to the court as to any prior dealings between the parties other than the one subject to the present dispute, which means that the requirements of Art. 23(1)(b) are not fulfilled. The Court then goes on to examine its jurisdiction from the angle of Art. 5(1). The claimant argues that by agreeing on the place of payment, the parties derogated from the provisions of Art. 5(1)(b). The Court cannot follow this reasoning since this would go against the ratio legis of the Brussels I Regulation. Only the Court of the actual place of delivery of the goods has jurisdiction. The Court reopens the debates so that the parties can submit evidence to the court on this question. Short critique The court correctly applies Brussels I. The court changed its prior case law where it erroneously decided that the parties could validly derogate from Art. 5(1)(b) by agreeing on a place of payment (see two decisions of Kh. Hasselt of 15 May 2002).