CELEX: 62010CA0087
Language: en
Date: 2011-06-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-87/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Vicenza (Italy)) — Electrosteel Europe SA v Edil Centro SpA (Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Article 5(1)(b), first indent — Court of the place of performance of the contractual obligation on which the application is based — Sale of goods — Place of delivery — Contract containing the clause ‘Delivered Ex Works’ )

30.7.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 226/6
            
         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Vicenza (Italy)) — Electrosteel Europe SA v Edil Centro SpA
   (Case C-87/10) (1)
   
   (Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Special jurisdiction - Article 5(1)(b), first indent - Court of the place of performance of the contractual obligation on which the application is based - Sale of goods - Place of delivery - Contract containing the clause ‘Delivered Ex Works’)
   2011/C 226/09
   Language of the case: Italian
   
      Referring court
   
   Tribunale ordinario di Vicenza
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Electrosteel Europe SA
   
      Defendant: Edil Centro SpA
   
      Re:
   
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Ordinario di Vicenza — Interpretation of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Special jurisdiction — Meaning of ‘the place where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered’ — Final destination of the goods covered by the contract or the place in which the seller is discharged of his obligation to deliver
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               The first indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of distance selling, the place where the goods were or should have been delivered pursuant to the contract must be determined on the basis of the provisions of that contract.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               In order to verify whether the place of delivery is determined ‘under the contract’, the national court seised must take account of all the relevant terms and clauses of that contract which are capable of clearly identifying that place, including terms and clauses which are generally recognised and applied through the usages of international trade or commerce, such as the Incoterms drawn up by the International Chamber of Commerce in the version published in 2000.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               If it is impossible to determine the place of delivery on that basis, without referring to the substantive law applicable to the contract, the place of delivery is the place where the physical transfer of the goods took place, as a result of which the purchaser obtained, or should have obtained, actual power of disposal over those goods at the final destination of the sales transaction.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.