EUPillar unknown - 2006/AR/2879 - Gent, 5 February 2007

Summary

By writ of summons of 27 June 2006, the appellant sues the respondent in the amount of 28.470,67 EUR. The court in first instance considers it has jurisdiction over just one of the invoices for the sum of 7.406,00 EUR. On appeal the appellant argues the claims are closely connected within the meaning of Art. 28(3) Brussels I and therefore should be heard together. The Court of Appeal, however, agrees with the first judge. The transactions and invoices may have succeeded each other, they are still separate. The purpose of Art. 28(3) is to safeguard the rights of the defense and to avoid inconsistent decisions. The advantage of procedural efficiency, invoked by the appellant, does not enter into account when assessing the “relatedness” of the claims and is therefore insufficient to warrant jurisdiction of the Belgian courts on the basis of Art. 28(3). The fact that all the invoices invoked by the appellant have the same general conditions and therefore run the risk of being interpreted in different ways by courts in different jurisdictions, is also insufficient in this regard. Moreover, the focus of the present claim lies not with the general invoice conditions but with the principal of each invoice. Instead of hindering commercial relations, as argued by the appellant, the absence of relatedness between the invoices should invite the parties to an international commercial agreement to more careful drafting.