Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2007:262
Date: 2007-05-03
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Concepts: Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments – Civil and commercial matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Austria

Summary of the Judgment 1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 44/2001 – Special jurisdiction – Court for the place of performance of the contractual obligation in question (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 5(1)(b), first indent) 2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 44/2001 – Special jurisdiction – Court for the place of performance of the contractual obligation in question (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 5(1)(b), first indent) 1. The reason for the rule of special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract contained in Article 5(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, which reflects an objective of proximity, is the existence of a close link between the contract and the court called upon to hear and determine the case. Under that rule the defendant may be sued in the court for the place of performance of the obligation in question, since that court is presumed to have a close link to the contract. In order to reinforce the primary objective of unification of the rules of jurisdiction whilst ensuring their predictability, Regulation No 44/2001 defines that criterion of a link autonomously in the case of the sale of goods. Pursuant to the first indent of Article 5(1)(b) of that regulation, the place of performance of the obligation in question is the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered. (see paras 22-25) 2. The first indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as applying where there are several places of delivery within a single Member State. That provision seeks to unify the rules of conflict of jurisdiction and, accordingly, to designate the court having jurisdiction directly, without reference to the domestic rules of the Member States, while protecting the regulation’s objectives of predictability of the rules of jurisdiction and of proximity between the dispute and the court called upon to hear and determine the case. However, the applicability of that provision does not necessarily confer concurrent jurisdiction on a court for any place where goods were or should have been delivered. By designating autonomously as ‘the place of performance’ the place where the obligation which characterises the contract is to be performed, the Community legislature sought to centralise at its place of performance jurisdiction over disputes concerning all the contractual obligations and to determine sole jurisdiction for all claims arising out of the contract. Since the special jurisdiction under that provision is warranted, in principle, by the existence of a particularly close linking factor between the contract and the court called upon to hear the litigation, with a view to the efficient organisation of the proceedings, where there are several places of delivery of the goods, ‘place of performance’ must be understood, for the purposes of application of the provision under consideration, as the place with the closest linking factor between the contract and the court having jurisdiction. In such a case, the court having jurisdiction to hear all the claims based on the contract for the sale of goods is that for the principal place of delivery, which must be determined on the basis of economic criteria. In the absence of determining factors for establishing the principal place of delivery, the plaintiff may sue the defendant in the court for the place of delivery of the former’s choice. (see paras 30-34, 37, 39-40, 42, 45, operative part)