PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

E. NV v. M. VOF - 04/1178 - Kh. Hasselt, 7 April 2004

Details of the court

Belgium, First Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

06 April 2004

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The claim relates to the unpaid contract price for work done to the facade of the defendant, a company domiciled in The Netherlands, by a Belgian company. The claimant invokes a jurisdiction clause in its general conditions of sale, printed on the back of the order form and the invoice. The Court considers that in this case, there should be a specific reference on the front side of the document pointing out that the general conditions are to be found on the back and that they contain a jurisdiction clause. The requirements of Art. 23 have not been fulfilled. The Court re-opens the debates to allow the claimant to present evidence as to another legal basis of jurisdiction which may grant jurisdiction to the Belgian courts. Short critique The Court refers to Art. 23 Brussels I in general instead of referring to Art. 23(1)(a) and (b) separately. While it is true that for an agreement in writing to be valid under Art. 23(1)(a), there should be reference on the front of the document to the choice of court clause on the back, the same is not necessary under Art. 23(1)(b). There it suffices if the parties have established a practice between themselves, even if that practice consists of printing a choice of court clause on the back of the invoice without referring to it on the front.