EUPillar TCE SPRL v Medialy SARL - Liège, 29 April 2010

Summary

The claimant sues the defendant in payment of two invoices in the total amount of 11,470.96 EUR for the installation of two air-conditioning systems and eight ventilation rosters on a VIP trailer destined to ride in the publicity caravan of the Tour de France. The first judge found he was competent on the basis of Art. 5(1) Brussels I Regulation, since “the obligation in question was performed in Aye, in the district of Marche-en-Famennes”. The first judge subsequently dismissed the claim, considering that the claimant was a subcontractor of SA Huet Carrosserie Industrielle and should turn to the latter for payment. On appeal, the defendant contests the jurisdiction of the Belgian courts and claims the Parisian courts are competent on the basis of Art. 2 Brussels I Regulation. The Court of Appeal decides that Art. 5(1) Brussels I Regulation is applicable even if the defendant invokes the non-existence or nullity of the contract (cf. ECJ 4 March 1982, Effer v. Kantner, case 38/81, OJ 825). In such a case, the court will have to examine if all the elements constitutive of a contract are reunited and set aside Art. 5(1) if it finds the contract is non-existent or null and void. In the case of provision of services, the courts of the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided, have jurisdiction. In the present case, the parties do not contest that the services were provided at the premises of the claimant in Marche-en-Famennes. Therefore, the courts of the district of Marche-en-Famennes, Belgium are competent to examine whether the parties entered into a valid contract and establish their jurisdiction. Based on the exchange of e-mails between the parties and the fact that the defendant signed an order form issued by the claimant, the court concludes that there was a valid contract between the parties and confirms its jurisdiction. The Court correctly applies the BrusselsI Regulation.