No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
DETERMINING THE PLACE OF PERFORMANCE UNDER ARTICLE 7(1) OF THE BRUSSELS I RECAST
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 April 2021
Abstract
This article calls for a reassessment of the methodology in determining the place of contractual performance under Article 7(1) of the Brussels I Regulation Recast. The first part of the article deals with Article 7(1)(a). It argues that in light of the adoption of autonomous linking factors under Article 7(1)(b), more types of contracts presently not covered within the ambits of Article 7(1)(b) should centralise jurisdiction at the places of performance of their characteristic obligations. The second part of the article considers the way Article 7(1) operates when there are multiple places of performance under the contract. The test devised by the Court of Justice of the European Union in this regard is not only difficult to apply, but the application of the test also often does not guarantee a close connection between the claim and the court taking jurisdiction. This article argues that when a claim is made in respect of a contractual obligation to be performed in more than one Member State, Article 4 should be applied instead of Article 7(1).
Keywords
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press for the British Institute of International and Comparative Law
Footnotes
The author would like to thank Dr. Pippa Rogerson for her comments on the first draft of this article, as well as the ICLQ editorial team for their feedback and revisions.
References
1 [1999] 1 AC 119, 131–133.
2 Reg (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters [2012] OJ L351/1.
3 Recast recital 4.
4 Recast recitals 15 and 16.
5 For the principle's application in the context of Recast art 7(2), see Marinari v Lloyds Bank Plc [1996] QB 217 [13].
6 Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc. v TVB Treuhandgesellschaft für Vermögensverwaltung und Beteiligungen mbH [1993] I.L.Pr. 199 [17].
7 Recast recital 21.
8 Fawcett, JJ, Declining Jurisdiction in Private International Law (Oxford University Press 1995) 23Google Scholar.
9 Recast recital 16.
10 Case C-256/00 Besix SA v Wasserreinigungsbau Alfred Kretzschmar GmbH & Co. KG (WABAG) and Planungs- und Forschungsgesellschaft Dipl. Ing. W. Kretzschmar GmbH & KG (Plafog) (2002) ECR I-01699.
11 Case C-12/76 Industrie Tessili Italiana Como v Dunlop AG, 1976 E.C.R 1473.
12 Case 14/76 Ets. A. de Bloos, S.P.R.L. v. Société en commandite par actions Bouyer, 1976 E.C.R. 1497 [11].
13 Tessili (n 11) [33].
14 Collins, L et al., Dicey, Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws (15th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2018)Google Scholar para 11–278.
15 Dickinson, A and Lein, E, The Brussels I Regulation Recast (Oxford University Press 2015) 152Google Scholar.
16 Fawcett, JJ et al. , Cheshire, North & Fawcett Private International Law (Oxford University Press 2017) 262–263Google Scholar.
17 Case C-440/97 GIE Groupe Concorde & Ors v The Master of the vessel ‘Suhadiwarno Panjan’ & Ors, [1999] ECR I-6307, Opinion of AG Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, para 30.
18 GIE Groupe (n 17) [46].
19 TK Graziano, ‘Jurisdiction under Article 7 No. 1 of the Recast Brussels I Regulation: Disconnecting the Procedural Place of Performance from Its Counterpart in Substantive Law. An Analysis of the Case Law of the ECJ and Proposals De Lege Lata and De Lege Ferenda’ [2015] YPIL vol XVI 167, 180.
20 [1999] I.L.Pr. 336.
21 ibid [6].
22 [1999] I.L.Pr. 384 [4].
23 GIE Groupe (n 17), Opinion of AG Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, para 95.
24 Case C-386/05 Car Trim GmbH v KeySafety Systems Srl [2010] ECR I-1255.
25 ibid [49]–[53].
26 Case C-533/07 Falco Privatstiftung and another v Weller-Lindhorst [2009] ECR I-3327 [51]; Grušić, U, ‘Jurisdiction in Complex Contracts under the Brussels I Regulation’ (2011) 7 JPIL 321, 322Google Scholar; cf TC Hartley, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments in Europe: The Brussels I Regulation, the Lugano Convention, and the Hague Choice of Court Convention (Oxford University Press 2017) para 8.68.
27 Hill, J, ‘Jurisdiction in Matters Relating to a Contract under the Brussels Convention’ (1995) 44 ICLQ 591, 598–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grušić (n 26) 330, 332; Graziano (n 19) 181–2.
28 Case C-288/92 Custom Made Commercial Ltd v Stawa Metallbau GmbH [1994] ECR I-2913, Opinion of AG Herr Carl Otto Lenz, para 80.
29 Reed, A, ‘Special Jurisdiction and the Convention: the Case of Domicrest Ltd v Swiss Bank Corporation’ (1999) 18 CJQ 218, 234–5Google Scholar.
30 Collins (n 14) para 11–263.
31 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters [1972] OJ L299/32.
32 Car Trim (n 24) [52].
33 Car Trim (n 24) [60].
34 Case C-249/16 Kareda v Benkö ECLI:EU:C:2017:472.
35 ibid [44].
36 Case C-87/10 Electrosteel Europe SA v Edil Centro SpA [2011] ECR I-9773 [18].
37 Case C-106/95 MSG v Les Gravières Rhénanes Sàrl [1997] ECR I-911.
38 ibid [33].
39 MSG (n 37), Opinion of AG Tesauro, para 9.
40 U Magnus and P Mankowski, Brussels I Bis Regulation: Commentary (Otto Schmidt 2016) 164.
41 MSG (n 37), Opinion of AG Tesauro, para 31.
42 P Rogerson, ‘Private International Law – Jurisdiction’ (2010) 69 CLJ 452, 454.
43 Art 7(1)(c) provides that if art 7(1)(b) does not apply, art 7(1)(a) would be applied.
44 ibid.
45 K Takahashi, ‘Jurisdiction in Matters Relating to Contract: Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention and Regulation’ ELR 27.1/6 (2002): 530, 545.
46 Hill (n 27) 601–3.
47 [1990] I.LPr. 149.
48 [1993] I.L.Pr. 778.
49 Case C-125/92 Mulox IBC Ltd v Hendrick Geels [1993] ECR I-4075 [11].
50 Case C-419/11 Ceska sportielna a.s. v Feichter ECLI:EU:C:2013:165; Case C-548/12 Marc Brogsitter v Fabrication de Montres Normands EURL ECLI:EU:C:2014:148.
51 Case C-196/15 Granarolo SpA v Ambrosi Emmi France SA, ECLI:EU:C:2016:559.
52 Recast art 62.
53 Grušić (n 26) 340.
54 Samcrete v Land Rover [2001] EWCA Civ 2019 [38].
55 M Giuliano and P Lagarde, ‘Report on the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations’ [1980] OJ C282/20.
56 Hartley (n 26) para 8.61.
57 Custom Made (n 28), Opinion of AG Herr Carl Otto Lenz, para 63.
58 Harris, J, ‘Sale of Goods and the Relentless March of the Brussels I Regulation’ (2007) 123 LQR 522Google Scholar.
59 Fawcett, JJ, Harris, J, and Bridge, MG, International Sale of Goods in the Conflict of Laws (Oxford University Press 2004) 97Google Scholar.
60 Custom Made (n 28), Opinion of AG Herr Carl Otto Lenz, para 152.
61 [2001] 1 WLR 1745.
62 ibid [15].
63 See eg Molton Street Capital LLP v Shooters Hill Capital Partners LLP [2015] EWHC 3419 (Comm) [94].
64 See eg Fentiman, R, International Commercial Litigation (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2015)Google Scholar para 5.95; P Rogerson, Collier's Conflict of Laws (4th edn, Cambridge University Press 2013) 315; Fawcett et al. (n 16) 738.
65 Collins (n 14) para 32–080.
66 Council Document 13035/06 ADD 4 (22 September 2006) Annex A.
67 Giuliano-Lagarde Report (n 55) 19–20.
68 Case C-429/97 Leathertex Division Sintetici Spa v Bodetex BVBA [1999] ECR I-06747.
69 Case C-266/85 Shenavai v Kreischer [1987] ECR I-00239.
70 GIE Groupe (n 17) [26].
71 Union Transport Plc v Continental Lines S.A. and Anor [1992] 1 WLR 15, 23B-C.
72 Leathertex (n 68), Opinion of AG Léger, para 31.
73 Grušić (n 26) 338.
74 Fentiman (n 64) para 9.51; cf Grušić (n 26) 338.
75 Grušić (n 26) 322; Dickinson and Lein (n 15) 151–2.
76 Case C-34/82 Martin Peters Bauunternehmung GmbH v. Zuid Nederlandse Aannemers Vereniging [1983] ECR 987 [17].
77 Leathertex (n 68) [41].
78 Rogerson, P, ‘Plus ça Change? Article 5(1) of the Regulation on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments’ (2000) 3 CYELS 383, 402Google Scholar.
79 Leathertex (n 68) [38].
80 Case C-386/05 Color Drack v Lexx International Verbtriebs [2007] ECR I-03699.
81 Grušić (n 26) 338–9; Harris (n 58) 525; Magnus and Mankowski (n 40) 179.
82 Grušić (n 26) 338; Magnus and Mankowski (n 40) 183.
83 Color Drack (n 80) [41].
84 George, M and Harris, J, ‘Rehder v Air Baltic Corp (C-204/08): service contracts, carriage by air and the Brussels I Regulation’ (2010) 126 LQR 30, 32Google Scholar.
85 Harris (n 58) 526.
86 Except for judgments involving subject matters covered in Recast art 45(1)(e).
87 Recast art 45(3).
88 See, in the context of validity and effect of jurisdiction agreements, Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG and others v Samskip GmbH [2013] Q.B. 548.
89 Color Drack (n 80), Opinion of AG Bot, para 125.
90 Color Drack (n 80) [30].
91 Color Drack (n 80), Opinion of AG Bot, para 128.
92 See for example, Falco Privatstiftung (n 26) [37].
93 Color Drack (n 80) [44].
94 Harris (n 58) 526.
95 P Jenard, ‘Report on the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters’ [1979] OJ C59/18.
96 Case C-204/98 Rehder v Air Baltic Corp [2009] ECR I-6073.
97 ibid [44].
98 ibid [45].
99 Color Drack (n 80) [31], [43]–[44].
100 Rehder (n 96) [42].
101 Grušić (n 26) 340.
102 Case C-19/09 Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger GmbH v Silva Trade SA [2010] ECR I-2121.
103 ibid [36].
104 ibid [40].
105 Wood Floor (n 102), Opinion of AG Trstenjak, para 84.
106 ibid.
107 [1991] I.L.Pr 361 [13].
108 Custom Made (n 28) [33].
109 Wood Floor (n 102) [42].
110 Magnus and Mankowski (n 40) 189.
111 Falco (n 26) [57].
112 Besix (n 10) [29] Emphasis added by the Author; Hartley (n 26) para 8.70.
113 Besix (n 10), Opinion of AG Siegbert Alber, para 61.
114 Wood Floor (n 102), Opinion of AG Trstenjak, para 88.
115 Harris (n 58) 527.
116 Wood Floor (n 102), Opinion of AG Trstenjak, para 78.
117 ibid, para 79.
118 Magnus and Mankowski (n 40) 179.
119 Wood Floor (n 102), Opinion of AG Trstenjak, para 61, fn 46.
120 This is an example adapted from Magnus and Mankowski (n 40) 178.
121 ibid 177.
122 ibid 186.
123 eg Magnus and Mankowski (n 40) 114 (‘The mere existence of Art. 2 should not lead to the preponderance of a restrictive interpretation’); Dickinson and Lein (n 15) 140 (‘Art 7 is clearly a provision in its own right that does not have to be interpreted more strictly or more leniently than other provisions’).
124 See for example XL Insurance SE v AXA [2015] 2 C.L.C. 983 [13].
125 P Schlosser, ‘Report on the Convention on the Association of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and to the Protocol on its Interpretation by the Court of Justice’ [1979] O.J. C59/97.
126 Case C-406/92 The Tatry [1994] ECR I-5460 [52].
127 Wood Floor (n 102), Opinion of AG Trstenjak, para 89.
128 [2015] I.L.Pr. 8.
129 ibid [29].
130 ibid [52].
131 ibid [53].
132 ibid [53].
133 ibid [53].
134 Fawcett (n 8) 111.
135 [2006] I.L.Pr. 10.
136 Mora Shipping (n 133) [21].
137 Canyon (n 128) [54].
138 Color Drack (n 80), Opinion of AG Bot, para 115, fn 30.
139 Wood Floor (n 102), Opinion of AG Trstenjak, para 90.
140 Besix (n 10) [34].
141 ibid [32], [34], [55].
142 ibid [34].
143 ibid [26].
144 ibid [34].
145 ibid [48].
146 Beaumont, PR, ‘The Brussels Convention Becomes a Regulation: Implications for Legal Basis, External Competence and Contract Jurisdiction’ in Essays in Honour of Sir Peter North (Oxford University Press 2002) 17Google Scholar.
147 ibid 19.
148 Fawcett (n 8) 9.
149 Magnus and Mankowski (n 40) 186.
150 Hill, J, ‘Jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Matters: Is There a Third Way?’ (2001) 54 CLP 439, 447Google Scholar.