Deakin University
Browse

File(s) under permanent embargo

Jurisdiction in complex contracts under the Brussels I Regulation

Version 2 2024-06-13, 10:30
Version 1 2017-04-05, 16:25
journal contribution
posted on 2024-06-13, 10:30 authored by U Grušić
A major innovation of the Brussels I Regulation¹ was the introduction, in Article 5(1)(b), of two provisions dealing with jurisdiction in matters relating to sales and services contracts. These provisions were introduced with the aim of remedying the shortcomings of Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention, as interpreted by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).² This Article gave jurisdiction in contractual matters to the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question. In De Bloos³ the ECJ held that the obligation in question was the obligation forming the basis of the claim. In Tessili the Court found that the place of performance of that obligation was to be determined by applying the law designated by the choice-of-law rules of the forum. The Brussels I Regulation has partially repealed the De Bloos/Tessili rules by providing an autonomous definition of the place of performance for sales and services contracts; this defi- nition applies regardless of the obligation forming the basis of the claim. The allocation of jurisdiction in other contracts remains unaffected.

History

Journal

Journal of Private International Law

Volume

7

Pagination

321-340

Location

Abingdon, Eng.

ISSN

1744-1048

Language

eng

Publication classification

C1.1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal

Copyright notice

2011, Hart Publishing, Oxford

Issue

2

Publisher

Routledge Taylor & Francis Group

Usage metrics

    Research Publications

    Keywords

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC