Case number and/or case name
TUBA turbinen-und Anlagen Technik GmbH v NV GASTURBINES EXPERTISE AND MAINTENANCE - 2005/AR/1773 - Antwerpen, 8 June 2006
Summary
The court decides, contrary to the judgment of the Commercial Court of Hasselt, that the choice of court clause on the invoices of the seller do not constitute a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves. 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. Nor is there a written forum agreement or an agreement in a form which accords with a usage of which the parties are or ought to have been aware and which in such trade or commerce is widely known to, and regularly observed by, parties to contracts of the type involved in the particular trade or commerce concerned (art. 23 Brussels I Regulation).
There cannot be Belgian jurisdiction based on Art. 5(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, because the obligations were to be performed in Germany.
The court concludes that Art. 2 of the Brussels I Regulation governs the situation. Since the defendant is domiciled in Germany, the Belgian courts do not have jurisdiction.
This is a correct decision.