EUPillar Panasonic Marketing Europe GmbH v BVBA GD Power-Tools - 2004/AR/996

Summary

Panasonic and GD Power-Tools entered into a contract whereby GD Power-Tools would distribute Panasonic goods in Belgium and Luxemburg. The case is concerned with the (wrongful) termination of this concession contract by Panasonic. GD Power-Tools (claimant in first instance and defendant on appeal) sues Panasonic for not respecting the notice periods imposed by Belgian law. The defendant on appeal had signed a customer file whereby he consented to the general terms and conditions. Panasonic relies on a choice of forum clause contained in these general conditions. The Court agrees that, pursuant to the choice of forum clause, only the German courts of Hamburg would have jurisdiction for everything that is concerned with the sale, delivery and payment of the concrete products involved. However, the court must examine its international jurisdiction on the basis of the claim as described in the writ of summons. The legal ground for this claim is the purported – oral – concession contract, which has nothing to do with the customer file. A concession contract is more than the simple addition of several sale transactions. The appellant is therefore wrong to invoke Art. 23 Brussels I Regulation. The court confirms the jurisdiction of the Belgian courts on the basis of Art. 5(1)(a). Since the purported concession contract was to be performed in Belgium, the obligation of providing proper notice of termination must take place in Belgium as well. Short critique The Court does not cite any case law of the CJEU. The principle that "the court must examine its international jurisdiction on the basis of the claim as described in the writ of summons" has been confirmed by the ECJ in Effer v Kantner, but it is also a principle of Belgian law.