PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

NV Beheermaatschappij Veghel v BV Dirk Standaert - 2006/AR/395 - Gent, 3 April 2006

Details of the court

Belgium, Second Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

02 April 2006

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

This procedure concerns a sales contract between the parties. The plaintiff relies on the choice of forum clause to start proceedings in Belgium. This choice of forum clause could only be found in the General Terms and Conditions of the company. The defendant has never signed a contract, but only received an order form that refers to the general terms and conditions. The plaintiff never showed the general terms and conditions to the defendant. The Court rules that a simple reference on an order form does not suffice for the validity of a choice of forum clause. The plaintiff then argues that a custom exists, but the Court does not accept this either. There were not enough previous contacts between the parties, so this cannot be called a custom. The choice of forum clause is invalid. The place of performance of the contract determines the jurisdiction, according to Art. 5(1)(a). The place of performance in this case is The Netherlands, so the Belgian Courts do not have jurisdiction. The plaintiff argues that the jurisdiction should be decided based upon the place where the price should be paid, and that the parties had the intention to set aside Art. 5(1)(b). The Court refuses this interpretation; such an interpretation was possible under the Brussels convention, but not anymore. Under the Convention the Court had to decide about the place of performance based on the applicable law. The Regulation has changed this provision. Short critique The Court correctly applies Brussels I.