Case number and/or case name
GASTURBINES EXPERTISE AND MAINTENANCE NV v. TUBA TURBINEN- UND ANLAGEN TECHNIK GmbH - A/04/2155 - Kh. Hasselt, 27 April 2005
Summary
The court decides that a choice of court clause, included in the general invoicing terms and conditions of the claimant, meets the requirements of Article 23(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation, since the parties had a long-term relationship and the defendant never contested the invoices.
Analogously, the general terms and conditions of the claimants contain a binding choice of law clause in favour of Belgian law.
An objection against the invoice which was sent three months after receiving it, was considered as too late, at least under the applicable Belgian law.
Short critique
The Court considers that the parties had other dealings prior to the transaction underlying the dispute at hand. That is a criterion that is often used in Belgian case law when assessing the validity of a choice of court clause under Art. 23(1)(b) Brussels I. Please note that this decision was overturned on appeal, because the The general terms and conditions which contained the jurisdiction clause only appeared on a few of the invoices dating from 1998 onwards, while relations between the parties started in 1995.