EUPillar SPRL GT Management v. SRL Polycar

Summary

The appellant is a Belgian company and sued the respondent, an Italian company, in payment of an invoice of 15,300 EUR, to be raised with the VAT, a penalty clause of 15% and interests of 12% per year. The respondent contests that the parties ever entered into a contract, but first of all it challenges the international jurisdiction of the Belgian courts. The appellant claims the Belgian courts have jurisdiction on the basis of its own general terms and conditions, and in the alternative, on the basis of Art. 624, 2° Belgian Judicial Code. The Court of Appeal instead applies the Brussels I Regulation, more precisely Art. 5(1). The respondent argued that since it contests the existence of a contract, Art. 5(1) cannot be applied. The ECJ has proven this is false in the Effer v. Kantner case (case 38/81). First of all, however, the Court of Appeal will examine the choice of court clause invoked by the appellant. The Court decides that the clause is clearly invalid: the appellant fails to prove that it notified the respondent of the existence of these general terms and conditions, let alone that the respondent agreed to them. The Court of Appeal then examines its jurisdiction from the angle of Art. 5(1). The contract was concerned with the rental of seats in a football stadium. Because there were no other services involved, the Court qualifies the agreement as a contract for the delivery of goods within the scope of Art. 5(1)(a). The appellant sued the respondent in payment: the obligation in question is therefore the obligation to pay. The Court has to find the law applicable to the contract to determine whether this payment has to be performed at the debtor’s or the creditor’s place of residence. Since the football stadium is situated in Liège, Belgium, Belgian law is applicable to the contract (cf. Art. 4 European Contracts Convention). Under Belgian law, debts are payable at the debtor’s place of residence. In the case at hand, the debtor is a company seated in Italy. The Court of Appeal therefore declines its jurisdiction. SHORT CRITIQUE The Court correctly applies the Tessili method, but it shouldn't have: the Court of Cassation (in its judgment of 12 October 2009) will later rescind this decision of the appeal court, because it should have qualified the rental of seats in a football stadium as a contract for the provision of services within the meaning of Art. 5(1)(b), second indent Brussels I.