Qorti tal-Appell; 2020-07-13; Alpha Briggs Mediterranean Limited illum AOST Solutions Limited v. Briggs Environmental Services Limited; 4/2013
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:MT:ACIV:2020:122332
Date: 2020-07-13
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Malta

82020MT0713(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international jurisdiction resolved by the Qorti tal-Appell (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’).
A company domiciled in Malta (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) entered into a contract with a company domiciled in Scotland (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The subject of the contract was the leasing of a special device used in the marine sector provided by the plaintiff, which would be used by the defendant in Oman for three months for the price agreed. After the defendant failed to return the device in time, the plaintiff brought a case before the Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) in which it sought the immediate return of the device and payment of damages. The defendant objected against the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance invoking Article 2 of the Brussels I Regulation (1), according to which ‘persons domiciled in a Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State’. Since it was domiciled in Scotland and no jurisdiction clause in favour of the Maltese courts was agreed between the parties, the Maltese courts lack the jurisdiction to hear this case. Moreover, the device had to be used in Oman, which also excludes Maltese jurisdiction. The objection was satisfied.
The plaintiff appealed before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal cited Article 5 of the Brussels I Regulation, which provides an option to sue another party ‘in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question’ and which further clarifies that ‘the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be, in the case of the provision of services, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided’. The Court of Appeal cited the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-204/08 (2), according to which ‘where there are several places at which services are provided in different Member States, it is also necessary to identify the place with the closest linking factor between the contract in question and the court having jurisdiction, in particular, the place where, pursuant to that contract, the main provision of services is to be carried out’.
The Court of Appeal held that the main contractual obligations, in this case, were the initial delivery of the device to the defendant and the return of the device to the plaintiff, which both had to be performed in Malta. Neither Oman (where the device was intended to be used) nor Scotland (where the rent shall be paid according to the defendant’s domicile) are relevant enough to establish the foreign jurisdiction over this case. The courts of Malta, therefore, have jurisdiction over all matters arising from this contractual relationship – also over the claim for the payment of rent and damages.
The Court of Appeal granted the appeal, rejected the first instance decision and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance for further hearing.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 July 2009, Peter Rehder v Air Baltic Corporation, C-204/08, ECLI:EU:C:2009:439, paragraph 38.