Week 6 - Jurisdiction I: Intro & Choice of Court
➔ ECJ 13-07-2006, C-4/03, [2006] ECR I-6509, GAT v. LuK;
◆ Article 24(4) of Brussels I-bis
◆ Question referred for preliminary ruling (para 13): “It asks whether that rule concerns all
proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of a patent, irrespective of
whether the question is raised by way of an action or a plea in objection, or whether its
application is limited solely to those cases in which the question of a patent’s registration
or validity is raised by way of an action.”
◆ Court ruling - Article 24(4) “is to be interpreted as meaning that the rule of exclusive
jurisdiction laid down therein concerns all proceedings relating to the registration or
validity of a patent, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or a
plea in objection.”
➔ ECJ 12-05-2011, C-144/10, [2011] OJ 2011/C 194/6, BVG v. JPMorgan
◆ Article 24(2) of Brussels I-bis
◆ Question referred for preliminary ruling (para 21): “Does the scope of Article 22(2) of
[Regulation No 44/2001] also extend to proceedings in which a company or legal person
objects, with regard to a claim made against it stemming from a legal transaction, that
decisions of its organs which led to the conclusion of the legal transaction are ineffective
as a result of infringements of its statutes?”
◆ Court ruling - Article 24(2) “must be interpreted as not applying to proceedings in which
a company pleads that a contract cannot be relied upon against it because a decision of its
organs which led to the conclusion of the contract is supposedly invalid on account of
infringement of its statutes.”
Week 7 - Jurisdiction II: Weaker Party Protections
➔ ECJ 22-05-2008, C-462/06, [2008] ECR I-3965, Glaxosmithkline v. Rouard;
◆ Article 6(1) of Brussels I-bis
◆ Para 13: “the national court essentially asks whether the rule of special jurisdiction in
Article 6, point 1, of the Regulation in respect of co-defendants is applicable to the action
brought by an employee against two companies established in different Member States
which he considers to have been his joint employers.
◆ Court ruling - Article 6(1) “cannot be applied to a dispute falling under Section 5 of
Chapter II of that regulation concerning the jurisdiction rules applicable to individual
contracts of employment.”
➔ ECJ 07-12-2010, C-585/08 and C-144/09, [2010] ECR I-12527, Pammer v. Reederei Karl
Schüttler and Hotel Alpenhof v. Heller;
◆ Article 17(3) of Brussels I-bis in section on consumer contracts - “This Section shall not
apply to a contract of transport other than a contract which, for an inclusive price,
provides for a combination of travel and accommodation.”
◆ Case C-585/08 - Para 24: “Does a “voyage by freighter” constitute package travel for the
purposes of Article 15(3) of [Regulation No 44/2001]?” (same as 17(3) Brussels I-bis)
, ◆ Court ruling - “A contract concerning a voyage by freighter, such as that at issue in the
main proceedings in Case C-585/08, is a contract of transport which, for an inclusive
price, provides for a combination of travel and accommodation within the meaning of”
Article 17(3)
◆ Case C-585/08 - Para 24: “Is the fact that an intermediary’s website can be consulted on
the internet sufficient to justify a finding that activities are being “directed” [to the
Member State of the consumer’s domicile] within the meaning of” Article 17(1)(c)
Brussels I-bis
◆ Case C-144/09 - Para 31: “Is the fact that a website of the party with whom a consumer
has concluded a contract can be consulted on the internet sufficient to justify a finding
that an activity is being “directed” within the meaning of” Art. 17(1)(c)
◆ Court ruling - “To determine whether a trader whose activity is presented on its website
or on that of an intermediary can be considered to be ‘directing’ its activity to the
Member State of the consumer’s domicile…it should be ascertained whether, before the
conclusion of any contract with the consumer, it is apparent from those websites and the
trader’s overall activity that the trader was envisaging doing business with consumers
domiciled in one or more Member States, including the Member State of that consumer’s
domicile, in the sense that it was minded to conclude a contract with them.”
◆ Non-exhaustive list of matters capable of constituting evidence that trader’s activity is
directed to MS of consumer’s domicile:
● “International nature of the activity,
● Mention of itineraries from other Member States for going to the place where the
trader is established,
● Use of a language or a currency other than the language or currency generally
used in the Member State in which the trader is established with the possibility of
making and confirming the reservation in that other language,
● Mention of telephone numbers with an international code,
● Outlay of expenditure on an internet referencing service in order to facilitate
access to the trader’s site or that of its intermediary by consumers domiciled in
other Member States,
● Use of a top-level domain name other than that of the Member State in which the
trader is established,
● And mention of an international clientele composed of customers domiciled in
various Member States.
● It is for the national courts to ascertain whether such evidence exists.”
◆ IMPORTANT!! - “the mere accessibility of the trader’s or the intermediary’s website in
the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled is insufficient. The same is true of
mention of an email address and of other contact details, or of use of a language or a
currency which are the language and/or currency generally used in the Member State in
which the trader is established.”
➔ ECJ 06-09-2012, C-190/11, [2012] OJ 2012/C 355/08, Mühlleitner v. Yusufi ;
◆ Article 17(1)(c) of Brussels I-bis
