Summary BIA closed book table

JURISDICTION – BRUSSELS IA MATRIX


Jurisdiction Requirements Court
Rights in - Restrictive interpretation (Webb v. Webb, Reichert, Gaillard, Locus rei sitae: courts of the MS
rem and Schmidt v. Schmidt) where the property is located
tenancie - Look at the main object of the proceedings (no forum shopping)
s in - Rei sitae qualification subject to qualification under national law
immovab (Ellmes Property Services, Weber v. Weber)
le - Tenancy can’t be time-share or complex travel arrangements
property (Klein, Hacker v. Euro-Relais)
Narrow - Temporary (6 months) Courts of the MS where the
alternati - Tenant is natural person defendant is domiciled
ve for - Private use
tenancie - Landlord and tenant are domiciled in the same MS
s of - Not complex (Roompot Services)
immovab
Exclusive jurisdiction




le
property
art. 24




- Only about life and death of companies + existence of the Courts of the MS in which the
Aspects decisions of their bodies company has its seat
of - Only disputes in which a party is challenging the validity of a
company decision by an organ of the company
law - Restrictive interpretation (BVG, BSH Hausgeräte)
- Judge can’t second-guess the intention of litigating parties (Koza v.
Akcil)
Validity - Restrictive interpretation (Barclay Pharmaceuticals) Courts of the MS in which the
of register is kept
entries
in public
registers
Registrat - Restrictive interpretation (GAT v. LUK, Hanssen) Courts of the MS in which the
ion or - DNI ≠ caught deposit or registration has been
validity applied for
of IP
rights European patent (≠ EU patent):
courts of each MS has exclusive
jurisdiction over the registration or

, JURISDICTION – BRUSSELS IA MATRIX

validity of European patents
Enforce - Can’t be used to reopen litigation (AS-Autoteile Service) Courts of the MS in which the
ment of judgment has been/is to be
judgmen enforced
ts
- Voluntary appearance of the defendant Court of a MS before which the
Jurisdiction by
- Not if appearance was entered to contest jurisdiction (ZX v. defendant appears
appearance/proro
Ryanair)
gation
art. 26 - Protected categories: judge has to inform defendant of his right to
contest + consequences
- Pure contracts of transport are excluded Consumer against the other party:
- There must be a contract: reciprocity (Ilsinger) - Courts of the MS of the domicile
- Concluded by a consumer (Bonnie Lackey) of the other party
- Consumer contract = private use: - Courts of the MS of the domicile
Consume - Dual use: professional use is negligible (Gruber) of the consumer
rs - Pre-existing general knowledge is irrelevant (Wurth
art. 17- Automotive, Petruchova, Reliantco) Other party against the consumer:
19 - Dynamic interpretation of consumer title (Schrems) - Courts of the MS of the domicile
- Secondary EU consumer law doesn’t impact the Brussels Ia of the consumer
Protected categories




qualification (Ryanair v. DelayFix, Pillar Securitisation)
- Either a default contract or meet the directed activities
art. 10-23




criteria (Pammer Alpenhof, Emrek)
- Subordination = supervision + instruction (Holterman) - Courts of the MS where the
- Dual capacity: employee qualification prevails for the entire employer is domiciled
relationship (Holterman) - Courts of the MS where the
- The contract is relevant (not the actual exercise, favor laboris) employee habitually carries out
(Markt24) his work
Employm - Lis pendens rules have precedence (Jamieson) - This can be the place
ent where the work hasn’t been
art. 20- carried out if this is not the
23 employee’s fault (Markt24)
- The courts of the MS where the
business is engaged
- The employee is the main
anchor, not the employer
(Noguiera v. Ryanair)