EUPillar NV V. v. A. SARL - AR 06/0247 - Kh. Hasselt, 1 February 2006

Summary

The plaintiff sued the defendant in payment of outstanding invoices for 85,446.93 EUR plus interests. At the hearing on 25 January 2006, the defendant failed to enter an appearance. The Court did receive a letter from the defendant on 16 January 2006, in French. However, the Court cannot take this letter into account not only because the document is contrary to the Belgian legislation on the use of languages in judicial affairs, but also because the defendant did not appear. Pursuant to Art. 26(1) Brussels I, where a defendant domiciled in one Member State is sued in a court of another Member State and does not enter an appearance, the court shall declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction unless its jurisdiction is derived from the provisions of this Regulation. The general invoicing terms and conditions provide, in French and in Dutch that all disputes will be put before the courts of Hasselt, Belgium. In the case at hand it is important that this choice of court agreement may be in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves. If the parties regularly encountered the same general terms and conditions during previous dealings, they presumably – if they aren’t wrongfully negligent – have knowledge of the choice of court clause included therein. If they never objected to the general terms and conditions of the other party, they are assumed to have agreed to them. Those dealings must be prior to the transactions underlying the dispute at hand. In this case, the claimant shows that there were about 15 prior transactions, governed by the same general terms and conditions. Therefore, the courts of Hasselt have jurisdiction.