Prim Awla tal- Qorti Civili; 2016-07-11; David Abela vs. Giuliano Papagni; 1181/2014
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:MT:CIVP:2016:101686
Date: 2016-07-11
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Malta

82016MT0711(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of jurisdiction of the Maltese courts considered by the Prim'Awla tal-Qorti Civili (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’).
A Maltese citizen representing a company domiciled in Malta (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed an action against an Italian citizen representing a company domiciled in Italy (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) for the payment of debts incurred as a result of various contracts carried out in Italy and Malta.
In his defence, the defendant objected that (a) he was not served with the documents initiating the proceedings correctly, (b) the Maltese courts lacked jurisdiction to hear this dispute, (c) the plaintiff's claims are unfounded and the amount claimed is not due.
The Court of First Instance assessed the circumstances of the case and indeed found doubts regarding the validity of service of documents initiating the proceedings. However, the defendant appeared before the court and defended himself, therefore the inaccurate service of documents had no adverse effect on his defence. This objection was dismissed.
The parties undisputedly entered into several contractual relationships, but no jurisdiction clause was agreed between them. The domicile of the defendant and of the company for which the defendant assumed obligations is in Italy and the activities related to most of the contracts between the parties were carried out in Italy. However, one of the contracts concerned the provision of consultancy services by the plaintiff in Malta. In a situation where a defendant is domiciled in other Member State of the European Union, the jurisdiction must be assessed under the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) which provides that ‘persons domiciled in a Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State’ (Article 4(1)). Such persons may be sued in the other Member States only if the Regulation provides exceptions to this general rule. Since most of the mutual relations were carried out in Italy, the Maltese courts lack the jurisdiction to hear the disputes which have arisen from these relations. This conclusion is supported by Article 7 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), according to which in matters relating to a contract, the jurisdiction lies with the ‘courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question’. The defendant’s objection alleging the lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance must be therefore granted, however, only with regards to the claims arising from the contracts performed in Italy.
It was undisputed that one of the plaintiff’s claims relates to the consultancy services provided for the defendant in Malta. Article 7(1)(b) second indent of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) then stipulates 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’. Therefore, the defendant’s objection of lack of jurisdiction, in respect of the claim relating to the provision of services, must be dismissed.
The Court of First Instance allowed the continuation of the proceedings, but only so far as the financial claim which has arisen as a consequence of the provision of services in Malta is concerned. For all other claims, the Court of First Instance declared a lack of its jurisdiction.
(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.