Part I - Application Exercises
The exercises below follow the order of the lectures. They start with basic applications and gradually become more
complex. Each model answer is written in the concise style expected in Part I of the examination: identify the relevant
legal instrument, state all possible EU courts with jurisdiction, cite the exact legal basis, and mention the leading case law
where relevant.
I. Brussels Ia: Scope of Application
Exercise 1 - International element created by a choice-of-court agreement
Case
Bikes BV and Wheels BV both have their statutory seat, central administration and principal place of business in
Belgium. They conclude an agreement in Leuven for the delivery of bicycles in Antwerp. The agreement contains a clause
granting exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of Rotterdam. Bikes BV wishes to sue Wheels BV for breach of contract.
Model Answer
Brussels Ia applies.
• There is a sufficient international element, although all substantive elements are located in Belgium.
• A choice-of-court agreement in favour of the courts of another Member State is sufficient to create the
international element: CJEU, Inkreal, C-566/22.
• The courts of Rotterdam have exclusive jurisdiction under Article 25(1) Brussels Ia, provided that the clause
was validly concluded.
• The domicile of the parties inside or outside the EU is not required for Article 25.
Exercise 2 - Public authority acting as a private party
Case
The Belgian State purchases laptops for its civil servants from Tech GmbH, which has its statutory seat and central
administration in Cologne. The laptops are delivered in Brussels but do not function. The Belgian State claims repayment.
Model Answer
Brussels Ia applies.
• The claim concerns a civil and commercial matter within the meaning of Article 1(1) Brussels Ia.
• The mere fact that a public authority is a party does not exclude the Regulation.
• The authority is not acting iure imperii, but as a private contracting party: CJEU, Eurocontrol and CJEU, Sapir.
• Courts with jurisdiction:
– Germany: domicile of the defendant, Article 4(1) in conjunction with Article 63(1) Brussels Ia;
– Belgium: place where the goods were delivered under the contract, Article 7(1)(b), first indent
Brussels Ia.
• Applicable law in the absence of a choice of law:
– German law: habitual residence of the seller, Article 4(1)(a) Rome I.
Exercise 3 - Public authority exercising public powers
Case
The French tax administration imposes an additional corporate tax assessment on a Belgian undertaking and seeks to
recover the tax debt in Belgium. The debt results directly from a unilateral tax assessment.
Model Answer
Brussels Ia does not apply.
, PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW - PRACTICE EXERCISE BANK
• Revenue matters are expressly excluded: Article 1(1) Brussels Ia.
• The administration is also acting as a public authority in the exercise of public powers: acta iure imperii.
• Relevant case: CJEU, Eurocontrol.
• Jurisdiction and enforcement must be examined under any other applicable instruments or residual law.
Exercise 4 - Non-EU defendant without a European jurisdictional ground
Case
A Belgian undertaking suffers damage due to an error committed by an American consultant domiciled in Boston. The
error was made in the United States and caused damage exclusively in Belgium. There is no contract, choice-of-court
agreement or protected relationship.
Model Answer
• The American defendant is not domiciled in a Member State.
• Article 7(2) Brussels Ia cannot independently be used against a defendant who is not domiciled in a Member
State.
• None of the exceptions listed in Article 6(1) Brussels Ia applies: no Article 18(1), Article 21(2), Article 24 or
Article 25 situation.
• The Belgian court must determine its jurisdiction under Belgian residual private international law: Article 6(1)
Brussels Ia.
• Any Belgian judgment in a civil and commercial matter may circulate within the EU under Title III Brussels Ia.
II. Exclusive Jurisdiction: Article 24 Brussels Ia
Article 24 appears at the top of the matrix. It prevails over choice-of-court agreements and voluntary appearance and must
be interpreted restrictively.
Exercise 5 - Ownership of a warehouse
Case
Chemicals NV has its statutory seat in Antwerp. Following an acquisition, it claims to have become the owner of a
warehouse in Dunkirk. A German undertaking disputes that the warehouse formed part of the acquisition. Chemicals NV
asks a court to confirm that it owns the warehouse.
Model Answer
• The claim directly concerns ownership of immovable property.
• Only the French courts have jurisdiction: Article 24(1), first paragraph Brussels Ia.
• Relevant case: CJEU, Reichert: Article 24(1) covers actions concerning the extent, content, ownership or
possession of rights in rem in immovable property.
• The domicile of the parties is irrelevant.
Exercise 6 - Contract for the sale of a villa
Case
A Belgian buyer purchases a villa in Nice from a Spanish seller. The buyer does not claim ownership of the villa, but
seeks annulment of the contract of sale and repayment of the purchase price on the ground of fraud.
Model Answer
• Article 24(1) Brussels Ia does not apply.
• The action concerns a personal right arising from a contract, not a right in rem with erga omnes effect.
• Relevant case: CJEU, Gaillard.
• Possible jurisdictional grounds:
– Spain: domicile of the defendant, Article 4(1) Brussels Ia;
– possibly the place of performance of the relevant contractual obligation, Article 7(1)(a) Brussels Ia.
• Applicable law in the absence of a choice of law:
– French law as the law of the country where the immovable property is situated, Article 4(1)(c) Rome I.
Page 2
, PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW - PRACTICE EXERCISE BANK
Exercise 7 - Short-term private tenancy
Case
A German owner and a German tenant conclude a tenancy agreement for a holiday apartment in Rome. The tenancy lasts
four months and is exclusively for private use. The owner claims unpaid rent.
Model Answer
• Italy has jurisdiction as the place where the immovable property is situated: Article 24(1), first paragraph
Brussels Ia.
• The German courts also have jurisdiction because:
– the tenancy is for temporary private use;
– it lasts no more than six consecutive months;
– the tenant is a natural person;
– the landlord and tenant are domiciled in the same Member State.
• Legal basis: Article 24(1), second paragraph Brussels Ia.
• Applicable law:
– German law, because the landlord has his habitual residence in Germany and the tenant has his habitual
residence in the same country: Article 4(1)(d), second sentence Rome I.
Exercise 8 - Holiday park with additional services
Case
A Belgian tourist books a two-week stay in a chalet in Zeeland from a Dutch undertaking. The package includes the
chalet, bed linen, daily cleaning, breakfast, access to the swimming pool and childcare. Following a dispute, the
undertaking invokes Article 24(1).
Model Answer
• Article 24(1) Brussels Ia does not apply.
• This is not a pure tenancy of immovable property, but a broader package of services.
• Relevant cases:
– CJEU, Hacker v Euro-Relais;
– CJEU, EM v Roompot Service, C-497/22.
• The Dutch courts have jurisdiction on the basis of:
– domicile of the defendant: Article 4(1) Brussels Ia;
– place where the services were mainly provided: Article 7(1)(b), second indent Brussels Ia.
• Examine separately whether the consumer section applies.
Exercise 9 - Invalidity of a corporate resolution
Case
A Belgian shareholder challenges a resolution of the general meeting of Tulip NV, which has its statutory seat in
Rotterdam. He argues that the required number of shareholders was not present and seeks annulment of the resolution.
Model Answer
• Only the Dutch courts have jurisdiction: Article 24(2) Brussels Ia.
• The action concerns the validity of a decision of a corporate body.
• Applicable law:
– excluded from Rome I: Article 1(2)(f) Rome I;
– residual private international law applies.
Exercise 10 - Corporate-law argument merely incidental
Case
A Dutch undertaking claims payment from a Belgian director on the basis of a personal fault. The director argues in
defence that a board resolution was invalid. The principal action concerns his personal liability.
Page 3
, PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW - PRACTICE EXERCISE BANK
Model Answer
• Article 24(2) Brussels Ia does not apply.
• The validity of the board resolution is merely an incidental issue and not the actual subject matter of the
proceedings.
• Relevant cases:
– CJEU, Hassett and Doherty;
– CJEU, BVG.
• The Belgian courts have jurisdiction on the basis of the domicile of the director: Article 4(1) Brussels Ia.
Exercise 11 - Public register
Case
A notarial office seeks annulment of a formal entry in the Spanish land register. The entry itself is alleged to have been
invalidly made.
Model Answer
• Only the Spanish courts have jurisdiction: Article 24(3) Brussels Ia.
• The subject matter of the proceedings is the validity of the entry itself.
Variant
The claimant merely asks the court to confirm that it owns shares listed in a Spanish register.
Answer to the Variant
• Article 24(3) does not apply.
• The formal validity of the entry is not the subject matter of the proceedings.
• Article 24(3) does not automatically cover the legal consequences of the entry or the underlying ownership issue.
Exercise 12 - Validity of a German patent raised as a defence
Case
A Swedish undertaking claims damages in Sweden for infringement of a German patent. The Belgian defendant argues
that the German patent is invalid.
Model Answer
• Only the German courts have jurisdiction over the validity of the German patent: Article 24(4) Brussels Ia.
• Article 24(4) also applies where invalidity is raised merely as a defence.
• Relevant case: CJEU, GAT v LuK.
• The infringement action as such does not automatically fall entirely under Article 24(4); the national court must
determine the further procedural treatment.
Exercise 13 - Patent from a third State
Case
A German undertaking brings proceedings in Germany concerning infringement of a Turkish patent. The defendant
challenges the validity of that patent.
Model Answer
• Article 24(4) Brussels Ia does not grant exclusive jurisdiction to the Turkish courts, because Turkey is not a
Member State.
• The German court may examine validity insofar as its decision has only inter partes effect.
• Only the Turkish courts may issue a decision with erga omnes effect on the validity of the Turkish patent.
• Relevant case: CJEU, BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux, C-339/22.
Page 4
The exercises below follow the order of the lectures. They start with basic applications and gradually become more
complex. Each model answer is written in the concise style expected in Part I of the examination: identify the relevant
legal instrument, state all possible EU courts with jurisdiction, cite the exact legal basis, and mention the leading case law
where relevant.
I. Brussels Ia: Scope of Application
Exercise 1 - International element created by a choice-of-court agreement
Case
Bikes BV and Wheels BV both have their statutory seat, central administration and principal place of business in
Belgium. They conclude an agreement in Leuven for the delivery of bicycles in Antwerp. The agreement contains a clause
granting exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of Rotterdam. Bikes BV wishes to sue Wheels BV for breach of contract.
Model Answer
Brussels Ia applies.
• There is a sufficient international element, although all substantive elements are located in Belgium.
• A choice-of-court agreement in favour of the courts of another Member State is sufficient to create the
international element: CJEU, Inkreal, C-566/22.
• The courts of Rotterdam have exclusive jurisdiction under Article 25(1) Brussels Ia, provided that the clause
was validly concluded.
• The domicile of the parties inside or outside the EU is not required for Article 25.
Exercise 2 - Public authority acting as a private party
Case
The Belgian State purchases laptops for its civil servants from Tech GmbH, which has its statutory seat and central
administration in Cologne. The laptops are delivered in Brussels but do not function. The Belgian State claims repayment.
Model Answer
Brussels Ia applies.
• The claim concerns a civil and commercial matter within the meaning of Article 1(1) Brussels Ia.
• The mere fact that a public authority is a party does not exclude the Regulation.
• The authority is not acting iure imperii, but as a private contracting party: CJEU, Eurocontrol and CJEU, Sapir.
• Courts with jurisdiction:
– Germany: domicile of the defendant, Article 4(1) in conjunction with Article 63(1) Brussels Ia;
– Belgium: place where the goods were delivered under the contract, Article 7(1)(b), first indent
Brussels Ia.
• Applicable law in the absence of a choice of law:
– German law: habitual residence of the seller, Article 4(1)(a) Rome I.
Exercise 3 - Public authority exercising public powers
Case
The French tax administration imposes an additional corporate tax assessment on a Belgian undertaking and seeks to
recover the tax debt in Belgium. The debt results directly from a unilateral tax assessment.
Model Answer
Brussels Ia does not apply.
, PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW - PRACTICE EXERCISE BANK
• Revenue matters are expressly excluded: Article 1(1) Brussels Ia.
• The administration is also acting as a public authority in the exercise of public powers: acta iure imperii.
• Relevant case: CJEU, Eurocontrol.
• Jurisdiction and enforcement must be examined under any other applicable instruments or residual law.
Exercise 4 - Non-EU defendant without a European jurisdictional ground
Case
A Belgian undertaking suffers damage due to an error committed by an American consultant domiciled in Boston. The
error was made in the United States and caused damage exclusively in Belgium. There is no contract, choice-of-court
agreement or protected relationship.
Model Answer
• The American defendant is not domiciled in a Member State.
• Article 7(2) Brussels Ia cannot independently be used against a defendant who is not domiciled in a Member
State.
• None of the exceptions listed in Article 6(1) Brussels Ia applies: no Article 18(1), Article 21(2), Article 24 or
Article 25 situation.
• The Belgian court must determine its jurisdiction under Belgian residual private international law: Article 6(1)
Brussels Ia.
• Any Belgian judgment in a civil and commercial matter may circulate within the EU under Title III Brussels Ia.
II. Exclusive Jurisdiction: Article 24 Brussels Ia
Article 24 appears at the top of the matrix. It prevails over choice-of-court agreements and voluntary appearance and must
be interpreted restrictively.
Exercise 5 - Ownership of a warehouse
Case
Chemicals NV has its statutory seat in Antwerp. Following an acquisition, it claims to have become the owner of a
warehouse in Dunkirk. A German undertaking disputes that the warehouse formed part of the acquisition. Chemicals NV
asks a court to confirm that it owns the warehouse.
Model Answer
• The claim directly concerns ownership of immovable property.
• Only the French courts have jurisdiction: Article 24(1), first paragraph Brussels Ia.
• Relevant case: CJEU, Reichert: Article 24(1) covers actions concerning the extent, content, ownership or
possession of rights in rem in immovable property.
• The domicile of the parties is irrelevant.
Exercise 6 - Contract for the sale of a villa
Case
A Belgian buyer purchases a villa in Nice from a Spanish seller. The buyer does not claim ownership of the villa, but
seeks annulment of the contract of sale and repayment of the purchase price on the ground of fraud.
Model Answer
• Article 24(1) Brussels Ia does not apply.
• The action concerns a personal right arising from a contract, not a right in rem with erga omnes effect.
• Relevant case: CJEU, Gaillard.
• Possible jurisdictional grounds:
– Spain: domicile of the defendant, Article 4(1) Brussels Ia;
– possibly the place of performance of the relevant contractual obligation, Article 7(1)(a) Brussels Ia.
• Applicable law in the absence of a choice of law:
– French law as the law of the country where the immovable property is situated, Article 4(1)(c) Rome I.
Page 2
, PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW - PRACTICE EXERCISE BANK
Exercise 7 - Short-term private tenancy
Case
A German owner and a German tenant conclude a tenancy agreement for a holiday apartment in Rome. The tenancy lasts
four months and is exclusively for private use. The owner claims unpaid rent.
Model Answer
• Italy has jurisdiction as the place where the immovable property is situated: Article 24(1), first paragraph
Brussels Ia.
• The German courts also have jurisdiction because:
– the tenancy is for temporary private use;
– it lasts no more than six consecutive months;
– the tenant is a natural person;
– the landlord and tenant are domiciled in the same Member State.
• Legal basis: Article 24(1), second paragraph Brussels Ia.
• Applicable law:
– German law, because the landlord has his habitual residence in Germany and the tenant has his habitual
residence in the same country: Article 4(1)(d), second sentence Rome I.
Exercise 8 - Holiday park with additional services
Case
A Belgian tourist books a two-week stay in a chalet in Zeeland from a Dutch undertaking. The package includes the
chalet, bed linen, daily cleaning, breakfast, access to the swimming pool and childcare. Following a dispute, the
undertaking invokes Article 24(1).
Model Answer
• Article 24(1) Brussels Ia does not apply.
• This is not a pure tenancy of immovable property, but a broader package of services.
• Relevant cases:
– CJEU, Hacker v Euro-Relais;
– CJEU, EM v Roompot Service, C-497/22.
• The Dutch courts have jurisdiction on the basis of:
– domicile of the defendant: Article 4(1) Brussels Ia;
– place where the services were mainly provided: Article 7(1)(b), second indent Brussels Ia.
• Examine separately whether the consumer section applies.
Exercise 9 - Invalidity of a corporate resolution
Case
A Belgian shareholder challenges a resolution of the general meeting of Tulip NV, which has its statutory seat in
Rotterdam. He argues that the required number of shareholders was not present and seeks annulment of the resolution.
Model Answer
• Only the Dutch courts have jurisdiction: Article 24(2) Brussels Ia.
• The action concerns the validity of a decision of a corporate body.
• Applicable law:
– excluded from Rome I: Article 1(2)(f) Rome I;
– residual private international law applies.
Exercise 10 - Corporate-law argument merely incidental
Case
A Dutch undertaking claims payment from a Belgian director on the basis of a personal fault. The director argues in
defence that a board resolution was invalid. The principal action concerns his personal liability.
Page 3
, PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW - PRACTICE EXERCISE BANK
Model Answer
• Article 24(2) Brussels Ia does not apply.
• The validity of the board resolution is merely an incidental issue and not the actual subject matter of the
proceedings.
• Relevant cases:
– CJEU, Hassett and Doherty;
– CJEU, BVG.
• The Belgian courts have jurisdiction on the basis of the domicile of the director: Article 4(1) Brussels Ia.
Exercise 11 - Public register
Case
A notarial office seeks annulment of a formal entry in the Spanish land register. The entry itself is alleged to have been
invalidly made.
Model Answer
• Only the Spanish courts have jurisdiction: Article 24(3) Brussels Ia.
• The subject matter of the proceedings is the validity of the entry itself.
Variant
The claimant merely asks the court to confirm that it owns shares listed in a Spanish register.
Answer to the Variant
• Article 24(3) does not apply.
• The formal validity of the entry is not the subject matter of the proceedings.
• Article 24(3) does not automatically cover the legal consequences of the entry or the underlying ownership issue.
Exercise 12 - Validity of a German patent raised as a defence
Case
A Swedish undertaking claims damages in Sweden for infringement of a German patent. The Belgian defendant argues
that the German patent is invalid.
Model Answer
• Only the German courts have jurisdiction over the validity of the German patent: Article 24(4) Brussels Ia.
• Article 24(4) also applies where invalidity is raised merely as a defence.
• Relevant case: CJEU, GAT v LuK.
• The infringement action as such does not automatically fall entirely under Article 24(4); the national court must
determine the further procedural treatment.
Exercise 13 - Patent from a third State
Case
A German undertaking brings proceedings in Germany concerning infringement of a Turkish patent. The defendant
challenges the validity of that patent.
Model Answer
• Article 24(4) Brussels Ia does not grant exclusive jurisdiction to the Turkish courts, because Turkey is not a
Member State.
• The German court may examine validity insofar as its decision has only inter partes effect.
• Only the Turkish courts may issue a decision with erga omnes effect on the validity of the Turkish patent.
• Relevant case: CJEU, BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux, C-339/22.
Page 4
