PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

Sita Recycling Services NV v. Exploitatie Maatschap Domein Scholteshof BV - A.R. 04/5068 - Kh. Hasselt, 5 January 2005

Details of the court

Belgium, First Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

04 January 2005

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The defendant failed to enter an appearance. The claimant has sued in payment of several outstanding invoices regarding the collecting of waste at the place of business of the defendant (Domein Scholteshof in Stevoort, Hasselt, Belgium), in accordance with the contract entered into by the parties on 27 April 2004. Attached to this contract are the general conditions of the claimant, signed by the defendant on every page. The general conditions confer jurisdiction on the courts of Turnhout and designate Belgian law as the law governing the agreement. The question is of the defendant is sued before the courts of another Member State than the state where the defendant is domiciled. Art. 60 Brussels I Regulation defines the domicile of a company or other legal person as the place of its (a) statutory seat, or (b) central administration, or (c) principal place of business. The Belgian establishment of the defendant is not its domicile in the sense of the Brussels I Regulation. Therefore, the claimant is right to invoke the Brussels I Regulation. The court then reopens the debates instead of handing down a final decision, so the parties can take a position on another questions: since the Brussels I Regulation is applicable, and the defendant is domiciled in another Member State, shouldn’t the claimant have respected the prescriptions of Regulation 1348/2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters? Short critique: See judgment of Kh. Hasselt, 23 February 2005.