EUPillar Houtbedrijf Kerkhofs BVBA v. J.C. Baars - 04/2350

Summary

The claimant is a seller of goods. In general, the buyers pick up the goods at the warehouse of the claimant – a provision to this effect is included in the general conditions on the invoices issued by the claimant. The case is concerned with one invoice in particular (invoice nr. 302000), which provides for a delivery address in The Netherlands and charges transportation costs. The claimant is of the opinion that the court is competent to take cognisance of all the contested invoices because of their close relationship. However, the Court says that in the context of the Brussels I Regulation it is not the case that related actions can be brought before the same court in and the same writ of summons (service) (with the exception of Art. 6 which is not the case here). Art. 28 Brussels I Regulation can be used as an exception to contest the jurisdiction of a certain court but it does not provide an independent ground of jurisdiction. The Court then applies Art. 5(1). The claimant argued that in casu the Belgian courts had jurisdiction, because the obligation in question in the claim is the obligation to pay the purchase price. Art. 57(1) CISG stipulates that if the buyer is not bound to pay the price at any other particular place, he must pay it to the seller at the seller's place of business. The Court disagrees. The theory that the court of the place of payment has jurisdiction, if and when the parties have agreed on a different place of payment than the place of delivery and if the obligation in question in the case is based on the obligation of payment, goes against the aim of the Regulation to give competence to the court of the place of delivery for all claims related to a sale, unless parties have agreed on another place of delivery. The courts of Belgium do not have international jurisdiction for the invoice nr. 302000. Short critique The Court correctly applies Brussels I.