Jurisdiction in complex contracts under the Brussels I Regulation

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 The Brussels I Regulation has partially repealed the De Bloos/Tessili rules by providing an autonomous definition of the place of performance for sales and services contracts; this defi- nition applies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.