EUPillar Simont Braun SCRL v. Thema SCP - Civ. Bruxelles, 24 June 2014

Summary

(Decision of the Civil Court of First Instance of Brussels) The appellant sued the defendant in payment of legal costs and fees in the amount of 1,611.20 EUR. The first judge declined its jurisdiction on the basis of Art. 5(1)(a) Brussels I Regulation, considering that the “obligation in question” was the payment of legal fees and that under Belgian law, payment must be sought at the debtor’s place of residence. However, on appeal, the Brussels Court of First Instance refers to Ar. 5(1)(b) Brussels I Regulation, which defines the place of performance of the obligation in question, in the case of provision of services, as the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided. This provision was added by the European legislator precisely because the method resulting from the case law on Art. 5(1)(a) was deemed to complex and lead to unsatisfactory results. The concept of ‘services’ within the meaning of that provision requires at least that the party who provides the service carries out a particular activity in return for remuneration. It is undeniable that the lawyer’s work provided by the appellant are services within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation. The Belgian courts have jurisdiction. SHORT CRITIQUE This is a typical example of a case where the court in first instance erred in applying Art. 5(1) Brussels I, because it looked only at Art. 5(1)(a) and determined the place of payment. Luckily, the appeal court correctly characterises the agreement between the parties as a contract for the provision of services, and applies Art. 5(1)(b), second indent.