COMPLETE BRUSSELS I CASE-LAW SCHEME
I. SCOPE OF APPLICATION (ART. 1)
Eurocontrol (C-29/76) – European air-navigation agency sued airlines for unpaid
route charges, acted as a public authority; acts in public power excluded from
“civil and commercial matters.”
Athenian Brewery SA v Heineken NV / Macedonian Thrace Brewery SA (C-
49/20) – Greek brewery accused Heineken of anti-competitive practices within
their corporate group, private business dispute, remains within scope.
Fahnebrock (C-226/13) – Investors sued Greece over unpaid government bonds,
issuing bonds is a normal private act, not sovereign.
Sapir (C-645/11) – Investors challenged Greece’s bonds restructuring, Greece
acted like a private debtor, not using public powers. Issuing and repaying bonds
are private financial acts. When a public body acts like a private entity it is a civil
matter.
II. GENERAL JURISDICTION (ARTS. 4 & 63)
Owusu v Jackson (C-281/02) – Mr. Owusu, a British citizen, rented a villa
in Jamaica for his holiday. He was injured when he dived into the sea and hit
his head, he sued Mr. Jackson, the British owner of the villa, in the UK. Mr.
Jackson argued: “You should sue in Jamaica, because that’s where the accident
happened and where most evidence and witnesses are.” In UK law, there’s a
doctrine called forum non conveniens (the court can decline jurisdiction if
another forum is more appropriate). Can a court in an EU Member State decline
jurisdiction (based on FORUM NON CONVENIENS) when the defendant
is domiciled in that Member State, but the dispute has stronger links with a
non-EU country?
Under article 4 Brussels I, if the defendant is domiciled in an EU Member State,
the court must exercise jurisdiction, even if the case is mostly connected to a non-
EU country.
Forum non conveniens is incompatible with the mandatory nature of the Brussels
system.
Besix v Wabag (C-256/00) – Belgian company sued an Austrian company for
breach of exclusivity in an international project; issue was where the obligation
had to be performed, clarified company domicile. Defines corporate domicile
(seat / central administration / principal place of business – article 63 Brussels I).
Lindner (C-327/10) – German worker employed by an Austrian firm questioned
which state he was domiciled in for Brussels I purposes, the court defined domicile
as an autonomous EU concept, not left to national law. Under EU law we look at
the main residence and life centre.
, III. CHOICE OF COURT (ART. 25)
Colzani & Segoura (C-24/76) C-25/76) – Two companies (Italian & French) had
a long-term commercial relationship. The seller’s invoices contained a jurisdiction
clause on the back of the invoice (Italian courts), that were sent after the contract
was already concluded. The buyer never expressly signed or mentioned this
clause, but kept paying and accepting deliveries. Later, a dispute arose, and the
seller claimed Italian courts were competent because of that clause.
A jurisdiction clause printed on invoices is not automatically valid under Article
25 (then Art. 17 Brussels Convention). For it to be valid: There must be real
consent between the parties. Merely including it after the contract was concluded
(e.g. on an invoice) is not enough.
Segoura (C-25/76) – Segoura (French buyer) and Bonakdarian (Italian seller).
They already had an established commercial relationship, they’d done several
transactions before. When the buyer placed another order, the seller sent an order
confirmation written in Italian. On the back of that confirmation there was a
jurisdiction clause designating the courts of Milan (Italy). The French buyer did not
protest, continued to do business, and received the goods as usual. Later, a
dispute arose, and the seller sued in Italy, relying on that clause.
Could this jurisdiction clause (choice-of-court agreement) be valid under what is
now Article 25 Brussels Ia, even though the buyer never signed or expressly
mentioned it?
Article 17 of the Brussels Convention (now Art. 25 Brussels Ia) requires that the
parties’ consent to a jurisdiction clause be “in writing or evidenced in writing.” The
clause must be communicated before or at the time of contract formation,not
afterwards.
In this case: The clause was contained in the written order confirmation, sent
before the contract was performed. The buyer had not objected to it. The parties
had an ongoing pattern of trade, and this same clause had appeared in their
previous dealings. Therefore: The buyer could reasonably be considered to have
accepted the clause as part of the contract, the consent requirement was fulfilled
through established commercial practice.
A jurisdiction clause may be valid under Article 25 Brussels Ia even without an
express signature if it was communicated before or when the contract was
concluded, and if the parties’ prior course of dealings shows clear, tacit consent.
So, Segoura’s silence was not “mere silence”, it was meaningful silence in the
context of a long-standing business relationship with repeated acceptance of the
same terms
n EU law, silence alone is never enough to bind someone to a jurisdiction
clause, but silence combined with a clear, repeated commercial practice can show
tacit consent
Coreck Maritime (C-387/98) – A forum clause in a bill of lading involving a non-
EU party is valid if it is predictable and accepted, even if one party is outside the
EU. The clause must be clear and foreseeable for the parties, in shipping, it is
common to include forum clauses on bills of lading. If the party receiving the bill of
lading accepts or uses it without protest, that’s taken as consent, as long as the
clause was clearly visible.
I. SCOPE OF APPLICATION (ART. 1)
Eurocontrol (C-29/76) – European air-navigation agency sued airlines for unpaid
route charges, acted as a public authority; acts in public power excluded from
“civil and commercial matters.”
Athenian Brewery SA v Heineken NV / Macedonian Thrace Brewery SA (C-
49/20) – Greek brewery accused Heineken of anti-competitive practices within
their corporate group, private business dispute, remains within scope.
Fahnebrock (C-226/13) – Investors sued Greece over unpaid government bonds,
issuing bonds is a normal private act, not sovereign.
Sapir (C-645/11) – Investors challenged Greece’s bonds restructuring, Greece
acted like a private debtor, not using public powers. Issuing and repaying bonds
are private financial acts. When a public body acts like a private entity it is a civil
matter.
II. GENERAL JURISDICTION (ARTS. 4 & 63)
Owusu v Jackson (C-281/02) – Mr. Owusu, a British citizen, rented a villa
in Jamaica for his holiday. He was injured when he dived into the sea and hit
his head, he sued Mr. Jackson, the British owner of the villa, in the UK. Mr.
Jackson argued: “You should sue in Jamaica, because that’s where the accident
happened and where most evidence and witnesses are.” In UK law, there’s a
doctrine called forum non conveniens (the court can decline jurisdiction if
another forum is more appropriate). Can a court in an EU Member State decline
jurisdiction (based on FORUM NON CONVENIENS) when the defendant
is domiciled in that Member State, but the dispute has stronger links with a
non-EU country?
Under article 4 Brussels I, if the defendant is domiciled in an EU Member State,
the court must exercise jurisdiction, even if the case is mostly connected to a non-
EU country.
Forum non conveniens is incompatible with the mandatory nature of the Brussels
system.
Besix v Wabag (C-256/00) – Belgian company sued an Austrian company for
breach of exclusivity in an international project; issue was where the obligation
had to be performed, clarified company domicile. Defines corporate domicile
(seat / central administration / principal place of business – article 63 Brussels I).
Lindner (C-327/10) – German worker employed by an Austrian firm questioned
which state he was domiciled in for Brussels I purposes, the court defined domicile
as an autonomous EU concept, not left to national law. Under EU law we look at
the main residence and life centre.
, III. CHOICE OF COURT (ART. 25)
Colzani & Segoura (C-24/76) C-25/76) – Two companies (Italian & French) had
a long-term commercial relationship. The seller’s invoices contained a jurisdiction
clause on the back of the invoice (Italian courts), that were sent after the contract
was already concluded. The buyer never expressly signed or mentioned this
clause, but kept paying and accepting deliveries. Later, a dispute arose, and the
seller claimed Italian courts were competent because of that clause.
A jurisdiction clause printed on invoices is not automatically valid under Article
25 (then Art. 17 Brussels Convention). For it to be valid: There must be real
consent between the parties. Merely including it after the contract was concluded
(e.g. on an invoice) is not enough.
Segoura (C-25/76) – Segoura (French buyer) and Bonakdarian (Italian seller).
They already had an established commercial relationship, they’d done several
transactions before. When the buyer placed another order, the seller sent an order
confirmation written in Italian. On the back of that confirmation there was a
jurisdiction clause designating the courts of Milan (Italy). The French buyer did not
protest, continued to do business, and received the goods as usual. Later, a
dispute arose, and the seller sued in Italy, relying on that clause.
Could this jurisdiction clause (choice-of-court agreement) be valid under what is
now Article 25 Brussels Ia, even though the buyer never signed or expressly
mentioned it?
Article 17 of the Brussels Convention (now Art. 25 Brussels Ia) requires that the
parties’ consent to a jurisdiction clause be “in writing or evidenced in writing.” The
clause must be communicated before or at the time of contract formation,not
afterwards.
In this case: The clause was contained in the written order confirmation, sent
before the contract was performed. The buyer had not objected to it. The parties
had an ongoing pattern of trade, and this same clause had appeared in their
previous dealings. Therefore: The buyer could reasonably be considered to have
accepted the clause as part of the contract, the consent requirement was fulfilled
through established commercial practice.
A jurisdiction clause may be valid under Article 25 Brussels Ia even without an
express signature if it was communicated before or when the contract was
concluded, and if the parties’ prior course of dealings shows clear, tacit consent.
So, Segoura’s silence was not “mere silence”, it was meaningful silence in the
context of a long-standing business relationship with repeated acceptance of the
same terms
n EU law, silence alone is never enough to bind someone to a jurisdiction
clause, but silence combined with a clear, repeated commercial practice can show
tacit consent
Coreck Maritime (C-387/98) – A forum clause in a bill of lading involving a non-
EU party is valid if it is predictable and accepted, even if one party is outside the
EU. The clause must be clear and foreseeable for the parties, in shipping, it is
common to include forum clauses on bills of lading. If the party receiving the bill of
lading accepts or uses it without protest, that’s taken as consent, as long as the
clause was clearly visible.
