EUPillar NV F. v. BV A. - AR 02/03167 - Kh. Hasselt, 11 December 2002

Summary

The claimant leased sound equipment to the defendant and has now sued in payment of the invoices it issued. The Court considers that a choice of forum clause on the reverse side of an invoice does not comply with the requirements of Art. 23 Brussels I Regulation. The claimant did not submit other invoices to the court than those subject to the present claim and therefore fails to establish a prior trade relationship between the parties. The Court considers that the lease of sound equipment does not constitute a sale of goods or provision of services within the meaning of Art. 5(1)(b) and applies Art. 5(1)(a). The obligation in question is the payment of the lease price. The Court then determines the applicable law according to its own rules of private international law. The parties did not make a choice of law. The Court considers that the contract is most closely connected to Belgium, therefore Belgian law is applicable. Under Belgian law, debts are to be paid at the debtor’s residence. This would imply that the courts of Belgium do not have jurisdiction in this case. However, on the front side of the invoices, only a Belgian bank account is mentioned. This amounts to a valid agreement between the parties (since the requirements of Art. 23 do not have to be fulfilled here). Therefore, the obligation to pay the lease price had to be performed in Belgium and the Belgian courts have jurisdiction. Short critique The Court applies the Tessili method.