EUPillar s.a. Instrumelec-IME v. s.n.c. SDEZ Industries Services

Summary

(Decision by the Mons Court of Appeal) The appellant in this case had introduced proceedings by writ of summons on 23 June 2010, calling for the dissolution of the commercial contract that existed between the two parties and the payment of a sum in compensation. The contract between the two parties included a choice of court clause granting jurisdiction to “a court of commerce of the State where the defendant company was domiciled” without any further specification. The first judge concluded that the Belgian judges had no jurisdiction, because, as the defendant argued, the latter is domiciled in Bondues, France (i.e. the place where its head office is situated, as indicated in the letterhead on the order form used to make the contract). The appellant now argues before the Court of Appeal that it has jurisdiction concerning the contract at issue. According to the appellant, the choice of forum clause is unclear and vague and should therefore be interpreted against the defendant. Furthermore, the appellant claims that it had contested the general conditions contained in the order form and also argues the contract was signed in Belgium. The Court of Appeal decided that the choice of forum clause was valid. Art. 23 does not contain the requirement that the courts appointed by a jurisdiction clause must be mentioned ad nominatim. Therefore the appeal was dismissed. SHORT CRITIQUE This judgment is a correct application of the Coreck Maritime case (C-387/98, Coreck Maritime GmbH v. Handelsveen b.v. and Others), where the ECJ decided that “[The first paragraph of Art. 23 Brussels I Regulation] does not require that a jurisdiction clause be formulated in such a way that the competent court can be determined on its wording alone. It is sufficient that the clause state the objective factors on the basis of which the parties have agreed to choose a court or the courts to which they wish to submit disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them. Those factors, which must be sufficiently precise to enable the court seised to ascertain whether it has jurisdiction, may, where appropriate, be determined by the particular circumstances of the case.”