PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

D. NV v. B. BV and M. - 04/573 - Kh. Hasselt, 10 March 2004

Details of the court

Belgium, First Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

09 March 2004

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The claim relates to unpaid invoices for the delivery of radiators by the Belgian seller to a Dutch buyer. The claimant also maintains that Mr. M., manager of the BV B. (buyer), assumed liability for the sales agreement entered into by the BV B and the seller NV D. The defendant failed to enter an appearance. Therefore, the Court examines its jurisdiction of its own motion, in accordance with Art. 26 Brussels I Regulation. In the writ of summons, the claimant erroneously invokes Art. 17 Brussels Convention. The Court applies Art. 23 Brussels I Regulation, which entered into force on 1 March 2002. The Court considers that a long-standing commercial relationship has been proven and that the jurisdiction clause was drawn up in a from which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves. The Court also considers that, in all likelihood, the claims between NV D. and Mr. M on the one hand and between NV D. and BV B. on the other hand, are closely connected in the sense of Art. 28(3) Brussels I Regulation. However, Art. 6 does not apply in this case. Contrary to Art. 6, Art. 28 does not provide a separate ground for jurisdiction, but can only be used as a defense mechanism. The Court sincerely doubts that there is a sufficient connecting factor to establish the jurisdiction of the Belgian courts over the claim between NV D. and Mr. M. The Court re-opens the debates so as to allow the parties to submit evidence to this effect. Short critique We do not know how this case was ultimately resolved, but from this first judgment it seems the court correctly applies the principles of the Brussels I Regulation.