EUPillar C. BVBA v. G. - AR 03/592 - Kh. Hasselt, 16 April 2003

Summary

The claim relates to unpaid invoices for the sale of textiles by a Belgian buyer to a Dutch seller. By its decision of 14 January 2003, the Court had reopened the debates. The issue is whether the place in a member state where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered, as mentioned in Art. 5(1)(b) Brussels I Regulation, must be conceived as the final place of delivery of the goods or as the place where the goods legally had to be delivered, under the law of obligations. The Court believes it is the latter, since: this complies with a literal interpretation of the text of the Article; the factual interpretation appears in almost no legal literature; the final place of delivery is an uncertain criterion; “delivery” is a term with a universal legal meaning, i.e. “the placing of the goods at the buyer's disposal by the seller” (see e.g. Art. 31 CISG) Art. 63 Brussels I Regulation mentions the final place of delivery of the goods; if Art. 5(1)(b) alluded to the “final place of delivery of the goods”, the words “final place of delivery” would have been used; the final place of delivery of the goods is often the place of business of the buyer, in that case Art. 5(1)(b) is no real alternative for Art. 2 Brussels I Regulation. In this case, under the agreement between the parties, the goods were delivered in Belgium. The Belgian courts have jurisdiction. Short critique: The Court correctly applies Brussels I.