EUPillar NV Z. v T.A. - 02/04205 - Kh. Hasselt, 26 February 2003

Summary

The obligation in question for which payment is asked, is the obligation of an autocar company, which at the request and for the account of a travel agent established in Germany, carried persons with a bus from Brussels to Düsseldorf. The Court refers to Art. 50 of the Rome Treaty to define a “service” and qualifies the contract in question as an agreement for the international provision of services. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the court must be determined in conformity with Art. 5(1)(b). The Court believes that by way of analogy with Art. 5(1)(b), first indent, regarding the sale of goods, if the parties did not agree on a place of performance, the place where the services were provided or should have been provided must be determined as far as possible by applying a factual criterion. In the present case, only the courts in Germany, i.e. the place of destination, are capable to determine whether the provided service has been performed, and therefore whether the defendant should pay for the performed service. The Belgian courts lack jurisdiction.