EUPillar SARL Galeries Thaddaeus Ropac v. SPRL Sobedal Belgique - 2014/RG/645

Summary

On 20 September 2012, the claimant, SPRL Sobedal Belgique, sued the SARL Galeries Thaddaeus Ropac in payment of two outstanding invoices of 35,954.62 EUR and 6,643.50 EUR, plus a penalty clause of 8,519.62 EUR. Sobedal had carried out construction works on the site of the gallery Thaddaeus Ropac in Paris. The defendant lodged a counterclaim of 66,504.50 EUR. In first instance, the Commercial Court partially awarded both claims and in the end ordered the defendant to pay still 29,311.12 EUR plus interests. SARL Galeries Thaddaeus lodged an appeal. In its legal briefs, the appellant wrote that the court in first instance, the Commercial Court of Namur did not have territorial jurisdiction. At the hearing, however, the appellant’s legal counsel said that it no longer contested the international jurisdiction of the Belgian courts. The respondent, Sobedal, sets out in its legal briefs that pursuant to Art. 4 Rome I Regulation, a contract for the provision of services shall be governed by the law of the country where the service provider has his habitual residence – in the case at hand, the services were provided by Sobedal, which has its seat in Belgium. The appellant does not contest that Belgian law is applicable. Short critique The defendant in first instance is a French company, but was sued before the Belgian courts. We do not know on what basis the court in first instance accepted its jurisdiction. The parties had entered into an agreement for the provision of services, but these services were provided in Paris, France (cf. Art. 5(1)(b), second indent). On appeal, the French appellant raises objections as to the jurisdiction of the Belgian courts at first, but changes its mind at the hearing. The Court of Appeal can assume jurisdiction on the basis of Art. 24 Brussels I (appearance of the defendant), although the Court itself fails to mention the Brussels I Regulation at all. On the issue of the applicable law, the Court follows the argument of the respondent who claims that Belgian law is applicable on the basis of Art. 4(1)(b). The defendant is a company seated in Belgium. It would have been even better if the Court of Appeal had referred to Art. 19(1) Rome I, which stipulates that the habitual residence of a company is the place of its central administration.