PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

Beuker Vochtrijke Diervoeders BV and Others v Mr. Filiep Desmet [administrator in bankruptcy], Rodenburg Transport BV and Others - 2006/AR/2693 - Gent, 28 April 2008

Details of the court

Belgium, Second Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

27 April 2008

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

In dispute is the sales agreement of assets and liabilities of the Belgian seller, who became insolvent in the meantime. The parties had agreed that Dutch law would be applicable to the contract and that all disputes resulting from the agreement shall in the first instance be settled exclusively “by the competent court”, without further specification. This does not amount to a choice of court clause under Article 23 Brussels I Regulation. Therefore the Court employs Article 5(1)(a) of the Regulation to determine jurisdiction. The “obligation in question” is the payment of the acquisition price. Since payment had to be made in Belgium according to the applicable Dutch law, the Belgian courts have jurisdiction. Alternatively, the Belgian courts also have jurisdiction on the basis of Art. 6(1). One of the defendants in first instance was domiciled in Belgium while the claims are closely connected so that they have to be determined together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments. The fact that BVBA BEUKER wasn’t party to the sales agreement of 3 February 2005 and that the claim directed against it is based on other grounds than those directed against its co-defendants, does not impede the application of Art. 6(1) of Regulation 44/2001. The court correctly applies the Regualtion.