JURE SUMMARY

JURE SUMMARY

A Luxembourgian company purchased ball screws from a Belgian company, which were used for the maintenance of a drilling machine. The general terms and conditions printed on the back of the invoice contained a jurisdiction clause in favour of the courts of Brussels (BE). The ball screws turned out to be defective, and the Luxembourgian company brought an action before the Tribunal d'arrondissement of Luxembourg (LU) against the Belgian company, seeking compensation for the loss suffered. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the court seised and relied on the application of the jurisdiction clause. The Tribunal d'arrondissement of Luxembourg accepts jurisdiction. It holds that in the absence of written confirmation of the jurisdiction clause, the purchaser's silence cannot be considered an acceptance of the clause, unless the oral agreement was concluded in the scope of an ongoing commercial relationship between the parties, on the basis of general terms and conditions which contained a jurisdiction clause. In this case, the Luxembourgian company did not object to the invoice containing the jurisdiction clause. However, the clause appeared once on the back of an invoice, which did not fall within the scope of an ongoing commercial relationship between the parties. Therefore the clause does not fulfill the requirements of form contained in Article 23 Brussels I Regulation, and accordingly, the court accepts jurisdiction pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Regulation.