Qorti tal-Appell; 2015-03-27; Maltrad (Holdings) Limited [C-28800] v. Norbert Coll; 832/2009/1
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:MT:ACIV:2015:93829
Date: 2015-03-27
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Malta

82015MT0327(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a dispute over a payment of EUR 25_000.50 based on a loan contract secured by a deed, which was decided by the Qorti tal-Appell (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’).
The Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Civili (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) ruled in the preliminary proceedings that th eMaltese courts have international jurisdiction to hear and rule in the current dispute and ordered the continuation of the proceedings to decide on merits. It based its decision on the fact that a Maltese company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) lent money to a French citizen (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), who only visited Malta for three days as a tourist, therefore does not have ties to Malta based on citizenship, residence nor domicile, but who has supposedly signed several documents in the office of a legal representative of the plaintiff in Lugano, Switzerland. One of these documents is the above-mentioned deed, while one of its provisions states that the contract shall be governed by the laws of Malta. The Court of First Instance ruled in favour of the plaintiff stating that jurisdiction based on the domicile of the defendant is not absolute while arguing that parties can agree on a forum of a dispute, which happened in this case. Despite the doubts of the defendant whether the deed is a document he signed, the court established the international jurisdiction of Maltese courts and stated that the words ‘governed under the laws of Malta’ also include the procedural aspect of the law, not just substantive.
The defendant filed an appeal. The Court of Appeal did not agree with the Court of Instance about the international jurisdiction being based on the agreement incorporated into the contract as the choice of law clause is different from the choice of jurisdiction clause. Where the parties did not agree on the jurisdiction, the choice of applicable law is only one of the factors to be considered. The Court of Appeal cited Article 7(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) according to which ‚a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question’. The parties did not specify where the payment should be made. The Court of Appeal, therefore, applied Article 1159(3) and Article 1159(4) of the Kodiċi ċivili (2) from which it follows that the payment, in this case, shall be made where the debtor resides. The defendant does not reside in Malta; therefore, the place of performance is not Malta. For this reason, the Maltese courts do not have international jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal annulled the decision of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the case.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) Kapitolu 16, Kodiċi ċivili (Civil Code).