Case number and/or case name
GL-PK Racing NV v. Racing for Holland BV - 05/1662 - Kh. Hasselt, 1 June 2005
Summary
The defendant who is domiciled in another Member State (The Netherlands) did not enter an appearance. Therefore the court examines its international jurisdiction ex officio (Art. 26(1) Brussels I Regulation).
The defendant sent an e-mail to the bailiff stating that it doesn’t contest the claim. This e-mail does not amount to an “appearance” in the sense of Art. 24 Brussels I Regulation which is sufficient to found the international jurisdiction of the court.
The claim relates to an invoice that has not been protested for services supplied by a Belgian party to a foreign client. The general conditions of sale of the claimant contain an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the courts of Hasselt. The services (related to racing activities) were delivered in Le Mans (France) and in The Netherlands. The quotation, sent about a month before the invoice by tele-fax, did not contain the general conditions of sale. No other transactions between the parties have been proven apart from the one subject to the present claim and no payments have been made to the claimant. Therefore the jurisdiction clause in the general conditions of the contested invoices do not comply with Art. 23 Brussels I Regulation.
Even if the claimant had pretended that the general conditions of sale were sent at the same time as the initial quotation, the defendant should have made clear that he accepted the general conditions.
Since the services were supplied in France and The Netherlands, Art. 5(1) Brussels I Regulation does not provide a basis for jurisdiction of the Belgian courts.
The Belgian courts do not have international jurisdiction in this case. Jurisdiction lies with the Dutch courts, pursuant to Art. 2 (domicile of the defendant).
Short critique
The court correctly applies Brussels I;