EUPillar NV N. , NV M. and MSC v. NV U. and U. INC. - A/07/00225

Summary

There is a contract of carriage between different parties. The claimants are NV N. (insurer, subrogated to the rights of NV M.), NV M. (buyer and addressee) and MSC (seller and shipper). The defendants are NV U. (Belgian carrier) and U. Inc. (German carrier). In this case it is important to know whether the carrier can be held liable for the transport, because the goods are lost during the transport. The framework agreement concluded between the parties does not determine the mode of transport. Therefore the CMR Convention is not applicable and the jurisdiction should be assessed according to the Brussels I Regulation. Under Article 23 of Brussels I, the courts chosen by the parties have jurisdiction, provided that at least one party is domiciled in the territory of the State. Such jurisdiction is exclusive unless the parties agreed otherwise. The contract of carriage between MSC and U. Inc. contains a choice of court clause which grants jurisdiction to the German courts. There is no contractual agreement between NV M. and U. Inc, nor between NV M. and NV U. Nevertheless, NV M. initiated a contractual claim before the court. The court concludes that NV M. manifested itself as a contractual party, or at the very least that it relies on this agreement to derive certain rights from it. Therefore, the choice of court clause is also enforceable against a third party who relies on the agreement. The defendants [NOTE: the court says "defendants" but probably means "claimants"] also invoke Article 6(1) to try to establish jurisdiction of the Belgian courts. It must be determined whether the claims against NV U. and U. Inc. are closely connected. Strictly speaking, these claims are connected. However, forum shopping must be avoided. As said above, only MSC and U. Inc. are contractual parties and the claimants do not have any contractual link with NV U. NV M. does not sufficiently establish on what its claim against NV U. is based and does not even show that NV U. really intervened as subcontractor of U. Inc. The court deems that Art. 6(1) is inapplicable in this case. The court dismisses the case for lack of jurisdiction, only the German courts have jurisdiction on the basis of the choice of court clause in the contract between MSC and U. Inc.