EUPillar SA Pierre Bergé et associés v H. - Civ. Bruxelles, 17 May 2013

Summary

The claimant – an auctioneer – seeks payment of the purchase price of a painting by Abraham Storck. The defendant contests the jurisdiction of the court, as well as the validity of the sale. Concerning the jurisdiction of the court, the claimant refers to its general terms and conditions applicable to the auctions it organises. The defendant refers to Articles 15 and 17 Brussels I Regulation (jurisdiction over consumer contracts) to conclude that only the courts of France have jurisdiction. However, pursuant to Art. 24 Brussels I Regulation, a court of a Member State before which a defendant enters an appearance shall have jurisdiction, except where appearance was entered to contest the jurisdiction or where another has exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of Art. 22. The latter is not the case here. Pursuant to Art. 854 Belgian Judicial Code, objections to jurisdiction must be entered in limine litis. The defendant, however, contested the jurisdiction of the court only in his latest submissions. In his first three submissions filed with the court, the defendant had accepted the admissibility of the claim and conducted his defence only on the substance of the case. The court correctly applies Art. 24 Brussels I. See also the case of the Court of Cassation, of 2 January 2014.