# C_2009282EN.01000901.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Intercontainer Interfrigo SC (ICF) v Balkenende Oosthuizen BV, MIC Operations BV

(Case C-133/08) (1)

1

(Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations - Applicable law in the absence of choice - Charter-party - Connecting criteria - Separability)

2009/C 282/15

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Intercontainer Interfrigo SC (ICF)

Applicant:

Defendant: Balkenende Oosthuizen BV, MIC Operations BV

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag — Interpretation of Article 4 of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 — Concept of a contract for the carriage of goods — Constituent elements — Voyage charter party — Applicable law in the absence of choice — Connecting criteria

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The last sentence of Article 4(4) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980, must be interpreted as meaning that the connecting criterion provided for in the second sentence of Article 4(4) applies to a charter-party, other than a single voyage charter-party, only when the main purpose of the contract is not merely to make available a means of transport, but the actual carriage of goods. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The last sentence of Article 4(4) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980, must be interpreted as meaning that the connecting criterion provided for in the second sentence of Article 4(4) applies to a charter-party, other than a single voyage charter-party, only when the main purpose of the contract is not merely to make available a means of transport, but the actual carriage of goods.

| 2. | The second sentence of Article 4(1) of the Convention must be interpreted as meaning that a part of a contract may be governed by a law other than that applied to the rest of the contract only where the object of that part is independent.
  Where the connecting criterion applied to a charter-party is that set out in Article 4(4) of the Convention, that criterion must be applied to the whole of the contract, unless the part of the contract relating to carriage is independent of the rest of the contract. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second sentence of Article 4(1) of the Convention must be interpreted as meaning that a part of a contract may be governed by a law other than that applied to the rest of the contract only where the object of that part is independent.

Where the connecting criterion applied to a charter-party is that set out in Article 4(4) of the Convention, that criterion must be applied to the whole of the contract, unless the part of the contract relating to carriage is independent of the rest of the contract.

| 3. | Article 4(5) of the Convention must be construed as meaning that, where it is clear from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is more closely connected with a country other than that determined on the basis of one of the criteria set out in Article 4(2) to (4) of the Convention, it is for the court to disregard those criteria and apply the law of the country with which the contract is most closely connected. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 4(5) of the Convention must be construed as meaning that, where it is clear from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is more closely connected with a country other than that determined on the basis of one of the criteria set out in Article 4(2) to (4) of the Convention, it is for the court to disregard those criteria and apply the law of the country with which the contract is most closely connected.

---

(1)  OJ C 158, 21.06.2008.

1

---