EUPillar unknown - 2006/AR/2878 - Gent, 5 February 2007

Summary

By writ of summons of 27 June 2006, the appellant sues the respondent in the amount of 14,406.17 EUR. The court in first instance considers it has jurisdiction over just one of the invoices for the sum of 1,715.20 EUR. The Court of Appeal decides that the first judge also should have accepted its jurisdiction over a second invoice for the sum of 8,506.00 EUR, since the delivery for which that invoice was issued, took place in Sint-Lenaerts, Belgium. The goods were picked up by the respondent at the warehouse of the appellant in Sint-Lenaerts, so that the legal place of delivery must be identified there, in conformity with Art. 31(b) CISG. Considering Art. 5(1)(b) Brussels I, the Court has jurisdiction over that second invoice. The international jurisdiction of the Belgian courts is settled by the Brussels I Regulation. The territorial jurisdiction of the courts within Belgium is determined by national jurisdictional rules. However, the respondent does not contest the territorial jurisdiction of the court and this jurisdiction is not mandatory. Where the third invoice, for an amount of 2,208.00 EUR is concerned, the first judge rightly decided to decline its jurisdiction. It appears from the invoice itself that delivery took place in Klundert, The Netherlands. The appellant cannot rely on Art. 5(1)(b) Brussels I. The appellant argues that its claims are related within the meaning of Art. 28(3) Brussels I. 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.