Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2018:173
Date: 2018-03-08
Language of the case: Portuguese
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling;Reference for a preliminary ruling - decision unnecessary
Origin: Portugal

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber), 8 March 2018 1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 1215/2012 — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Agreement conferring jurisdiction – Consent of the parties — Formal conditions — Written form – Clause set out in the general terms and conditions of sale mentioned only in the invoices issued by one of the parties to the contract — Formal requirements not satisfied (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Art. 25(1)) 2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 1215/2012 — Special jurisdiction — Article 7(1)( b) — Commercial concession agreement – Possibility of classifying the latter as a contract for the sale of goods or a contract for the provision of services depending on the on the obligation which characterises that agreement — Determination by the national court — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Art. 7, point 1(b)) 3. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 1215/2012 — Special jurisdiction — Article 7(1)(b), second indent — Concept of (‘supply of services’) — Exclusive or semi-exclusive concession agreement — Included (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Art. 7, point 1(b), second indent) 4. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 1215/2012 — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question — Claim for damages relating to a commercial concession agreement for the distribution of goods in a Member State other than the Member States in which the parties to the agreement have business premises — Jurisdiction of the Member State of the place of the main provision of services deriving from the contract or, if not the place of the actual performance of that contract, and where it cannot be determined, the place where the agent is domiciled. (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1215/2012, Art. 7, point 1(b), second indent) 1. Article 25(1) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the verifications to be made by the referring court, a jurisdiction clause, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, set out in the general conditions of sale mentioned in invoices issued by one of the contracting parties does not satisfy the requirements of that provision. (see para. 32, operative part 1) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 34-40) 3. See the text of the decision. (see para. 41) 4. Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the court with jurisdiction, by virtue of that provision, to hear a claim for compensation relating to the termination of a commercial concession agreement concluded between two companies established and operating in two different Member States for the distribution of goods on the domestic market of a third Member State in which neither of those companies has a branch or establishment, is that of the Member State in which the place of the main supply of services, as is clear from the provisions of the contract and, in the absence of such provisions, the actual performance of that contract, and where it cannot be determined on that basis, the place where the agent is domiciled. It follows from the case-law of the Court that, when there are several places of performance of the obligation characteristic of a contract for the supply of services the ‘place of performance’ within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b), second indent, of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be understood as the place with the closest linking factor, which, as a general rule, will be at the place of the main provision of services (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 March 2010, Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger, C‑19/09, EU:C:2010:137, paragraphs 33 and 34). Therefore, the court with jurisdiction to hear claims based on a contract for the supply of services in the case of the supply of services in several Member States is the court of the Member State of the place of the main provision of services, as it follows from the provisions of the contract and, in the absence of such provision, of the actual performance of that contract and, where it cannot be determined on that basis, the place where the agent is domiciled (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 March 2010, Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger, C‑19/09, EU:C:2010:137, paragraph 43). (see paras 44, 45, 47, operative part 2)