nach oben

Erschienen in:

2020 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Belgium: Optional Choice of Court Agreements, Legal Uncertainty Despite a Modern Legal Framework

verfasst von : Geert Van Calster, Michiel Poesen

Erschienen in: Optional Choice of Court Agreements in Private International Law

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

While Belgian private international law rules in principle are in favour of choice of court, as a reflection of the overall encouragement of party autonomy, ambiguity remains, revolving around optional and asymmetrical choice of court agreements.

One particular complication concerns the application of the unfair market practices legislation in B2C relations that are not subject to the consumer section of the Brussels I Regulation and the Recast Regulation, such as transport contracts. Moreover, Belgian courts are likely to subject all choice of court agreements to the requirement of good faith. Lack of case-law on these issues suggests either that legal practice has not picked up on these issues—or indeed that such litigation is typically taken away from the Belgian courts by virtue of the very choice of court agreement.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Australia: Inconsistencies in the Treatment of Optional Choice of Court Agreements

Nächstes Kapitel Québec: Les Clauses D’Élection De For facultatives En droit international Privé Québécois

Available on http://bit.ly/2z0AIsR.

Wet van 16 juli 2004 houdende het Wetboek van internationaal privaatrecht, Belgian Official Gazette 27 July 2004, 57344. Available on http://bit.ly/2z0vHQQ.

Recital 15 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation; Hartley and Dogauchi (2013), p. 31, para 1; Wautelet (2013), p. 1705; Erauw and Storme (2009), p. 121, para 55; Fallon and Rigaux (2005), p. 375, para 9.14; Erauw and Fallon (2004), p. 92; Laenens (1981), p. 160, para 544–545.

1968 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, [1972] OJ L 299/32; Regulation 44/2001on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, [2001] OJ L12/1; Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, [2012] OJ L351/1.

Council Decision 2014/887 on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements, [2014] OJ L353/5.

Cass. 2 November 2001, RCJB 2003, 263, case note Fallon; Wautelet (2008), pp. 135–136.

Article 21 Act 2004: Kruger and Verhellen (2016), p. 36; Van Calster (2016), p. 129; Van Calster (2015), p. 17, para 31.

Nuyts (2005), p. 177, para 6173; Erauw (2004–2005), p. 124.

In general, these limitations also apply under the Brussels I Regulation. The reference to the lex fori prorogati has been added in the Brussels I Recast Regulation and did not feature in the Brussels I Regulation.

Article 25 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation; Van Calster (2016), p. 129; Van Calster (2015), pp. 1453–1457.

Van Calster (2016), p. 73; Senechal (2008), p. 38, para 10.

Specifically for employment contracts see Gangsted and Van Calster (2017), pp. 83–141; Senechal (2008), p. 39, para 11.

Van Calster (2016), pp. 119–120.

Recital 20 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation. The Belgian Supreme Court in ordinary, however, applied Art 25 without following Recital 20’s renvoi instruction: Cass. 8 February 2019, docket number C.18.0354.N.

See also, along similar lines, Francq (2015), p. 97, para 30.

Article 25(1) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation.

Hartley (2013), p. 107, para 6.05.

The Brussels I Recast Regulation refers to the lex fori prorogati with regard to material validity of a choice of court agreement; Kruger and Verhellen (2016), p. 98; Francq (2015), p. 96, para 28.

Kruger and Verhellen (2016), p. 84; Hartley (2013), p. 122, para 6.51.

Kruger and Verhellen (2016), pp. 84–85.

Van Boxstael (2010), p. 192, para 94.

Article 97, paragraph 3 Act 2004; De Meyer and Storme (2014), p. 499.

Fallon and Rigaux (2005), p. 778, para 14.17.

Pertegas Sender (2005), p. 178, para 35.

Article 98, paragraph 1 Act 2004.

Wautelet (2008), p. 139; Fallon and Rigaux (2005), p. 780, para 14.18.

Pertegas and Samyn (2006), p. 34.

Pertegas Sender (2005), p. 178, para 35.

Verbruggen (2013), p. 446, para 12.

Van Calster (2015), p. 21, para 40; Van Calster (2015), p. 1455, para 34.

Wautelet (2013), p. 1726; Marquette (2013), p. 65, para 57; Verbruggen (2013), p. 446, para 12.

Marquette (2013), p. 66, para 58.

Van Calster (2015), p. 1455, para 34.

Hartley (2013), p. 14, para 1.32; Marquette (2013), p. 65, para 56; Verbruggen (2013), pp. 446–447, para 12.

Hartley and Dogauchi (2013), p. 31, para 9; Hartley (2013), pp. 143–144, para 7.42. The 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention will complement the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention by providing for a base of recognition and enforcement of judgments given by a court designated in an agreement “other than an exclusive choice of court agreement” (Art 5(1)(m)).

Pertegas and Samyn (2006), pp. 33 and 40; Van Houtte and Verlinden (2004), p. 14, para 46.

Article 25(1) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation; van Calster (2015), p. 1455, para 34.

Magnus and Mankowski (2016), pp. 655–656, para 141; Erauw and Storme (2009), p. 123 in initio, para 56; Francq (2015), p. 97, para 30.

A good free source for collated case law (taken from judgments published in reviews) is the site managed by my colleague at Antwerp, prof Thalia Kruger: http://www.eurprocedure.be/?language=nl&form_type=basic.

Verbruggen (2013), p. 447, para 12 in fine.

Marquette (2013), pp. 65–66, para 57; Verbruggen (2013), p. 447, para 12.

Van Calster (2016), p. 129; Van Calster (2015), p. 1455, para 34.

Marquette (2013), p. 66, para 58; Verbruggen (2013), pp. 448–449, para 15.

Marquette (2013), p. 67, para 59; Van Calster and Verhulst (2013), p. 15, para 53.

See above note 26.

Verbruggen (2013), p. 449, para 16.

Dickinson and Lein (2015), pp. 326–330, para 11.16–11.29.

Dickinson and Lein (2015), p. 341, para 11.54.

Erauw and Storme (2009), p. 149, nr 77; Pertegas and Samyn (2006), pp. 79–83; Wautelet (2004), p. 215, para 21.

Storme (2006), p. 147; Wautelet (2004), pp. 214–215, para. 21.

Storme (2006), p. 147; Wautelet (2004), p. 216, para 24.

Commercial court Henegouwen, section Charleroi 24 March 2017, docket number A/16/01963, and docket number A/16/01964, unpublished case law; Verhoeven (2017), p. 3.

Contracts of carriage are excluded from the scope of the consumer section of the Brussels I Regulation and the Brussels I Recast Regulation: Magnus and Mankowski (2016), pp. 504–505, para 115.

Article VI.82, 23° Code of Economic Law. See Article XIV.50, 23° Code of Economic Law.

Directive 2005/29 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market [2005] OJ L149/22.

CJEU Joined cases C-240/98 to C-244/98 Oceano Grupo, ECLI:EU:C:2000:346.

CJEU Joined cases C-240/98 to C-244/98 Oceano Grupo, ECLI:EU:C:2000:346, para. 22.

Vanlergberghe (2015), pp. 117–119, para 3; p. 128, para 14.

Nuyts (2003), p. 412, para 308.

Rodger (2006), p. 71 defines the doctrine of forum non conveniens as “a plea to the effect that a court with jurisdiction should decline to exercise its jurisdiction because the just determination of the dispute requires that the action should be tried elsewhere in a more appropriate forum.”

Case C-281/02, Owusu, ECLI:EU:C:2005:120, para. 46.

Wautelet (2008), pp. 142–143; Pertegas and Samyn (2006), p. 37; Carlier (2005), para 15.

Commercial Court Henegouwen, section Charleroi 24 March 2017, docket number A/16/01963, p. 3, and docket number A/16/01964, p. 3, unpublished case-law.

Vanlergberghe (2015), pp. 117–119, para 3; p. 128, para 14.

Vanlergberghe (2015), p. 120, para 5; Taelman (1988), p. 101, para 13; Fallon and Rigaux (2005), p. 469, para 11.3.

AMT v Marzillier [2017] UKSC 13. See analysis, including of the High Court and Court of Appeal judgment, by Van Calster (2017b).

“Territoriaal bevoegdheidsbeding” (Dutch), “Clause de compétence territorial” (French).

Regional court Brussels 29 March 2000, AJT 2000-01, 215.

Gerechtelijk Wetboek, Belgian Official Gazette 10 October 1967, 11360.

Laenens (1981), p. 109, para 390.

Interpretation contra proferentem pursuant to Article 1162 of the Belgian Civil Code; Laenens (1981), pp. 107–108, para 382–395.

Regional court Brussels 30 January 1967, Pas. 1967, II, 205. District court (burgerlijke rechtbank; tribunal civil; Zivilgericht) Hoei 14 November 1882, Pas. 1883, III, 15.

Laenens (1981), p. 109, para 389–390; Voet (2007), p. 326.

Commercial court Ghent 2 February 2007, RW 2007-08, 324, case note S Voet; Commercial court; Tongeren 19 December 2006, P&B 2007, 65.

Hartley (2013), p. 141, para 7.34.

Marquette (2013), pp. 66–67, para 59; Verbruggen (2013), p. 447, para 13.

Van Calster (2015), p. 21, para 40.

Regional court Ghent 14 January 2009, RABG 2011, 291.

Marquette (2013), p. 66, para 58; Verbruggen (2013), pp. 448–449, para 15.

Dickinson and Lein (2015), p. 341, para 11.54.

Magnus and Mankowski (2016), p. 429, para 1; p. 557, para 8.

Magnus and Mankowski (2016), p. 522, para. 22.

Magnus and Mankowski (2016), p. 513, para. 11; p. 553, para. 1.

Hartley (2013), p. 141, para 7.34, footnote 37.

It is worth noting that Turkish case law takes a similar approach: Van Calster (2017a).

Vanlergberghe (2015), pp. 117–119, para 3; p. 128, para 14.

Vanlergberghe (2015), pp. 125–126, para 11; Taelman (1988), pp. 94–95, para 6.

See above Sect. 3.4.2.

CJEU, joined cases C-240/98 to C-244/98, ECLI:EU:C:2000:346, Oceano Grupo, para 22.

Erauw and Storme (2009), p. 149, para 77.

The Belgian government attempted to establish the Brussels International Business Court (BIBC): Wetsontwerp houdende de oprichting van het Brussels International Business Court, Parl. St. Kamer 2017-2018, nr. 3072/001; Bambust (2017), p. 16. The BIBC’s aim was to promote Belgium as a jurisdiction for post-Brexit cross-border commercial and financial dispute resolution. If the BIBC had achieved its goal, it would have been bound to develop extensive case law on choice of court agreements, including optional and asymmetrical ones. Unfortunately, the bill that was meant to establish the BIBC did not pass the scrutiny of the federal parliament: Van Calster (2019).

Bambust I (2017) Brussels international business court. Juristenkrant:16

Carlier J-Y (2005) Le Code belge de droit international privé. RCDIP:11

de Meyer J, Storme H (2014) Artikel 97 WIPR. In: Couwenberg I, Hansenbout A, Vanfraechem L (eds) Internationaal Privaatrecht. Duiding. Larcier, Brussel, pp 757–758

Dickinson A, Lein E (2015) The Brussels I regulation recast. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Erauw J (2004–2005) Het vernieuwde internationaal privaatrecht van België wordt van kracht. RW:121

Erauw J, Fallon M (2004) De nieuwe wet op het internationaal privaatrecht. Kluwer, Antwerp

Erauw J, Storme H (2009) Beginselen van het Belgisch Privaatrecht. Internationaal privaatrecht. Kluwer, Mechelen

Fallon M, Rigaux F (2005) Droit international privé. Larcier, Brussels

Francq S (2015) De Bruxelles I à Bruxelles Ibis. JT:89

Gangsted J, Van Calster G (2017) Protected parties in European and American conflict of laws: a comparative analysis of individual employment contracts. Eur Yearb Private Int Law 18:83–142

Hartley T (2013) Choice-of-court agreements under the European and international instruments. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Kruger T, Verhellen J (2016) Internationaal privaatrecht. De essentie. Die Keure, Bruges

Laenens J (1981) De bevoegdheidsovereenkomst naar Belgisch recht. Kluwer, Antwerp

Magnus U, Mankowski P (2016) European commentaries on private international law, vol 1. Verlag Dr Otto Schmidt, Munich

Marquette V (2013) Contracter dans un contexte international: les frontières a l’autonomie de la volonté. In: IJE/IBJ (ed) Le droit des affaires en évolution/Tendensen in het bedrijfsrecht. Bruylant, Brussels, pp 15–75

Nuyts A (2003) L’exception de forum non conveniens. Bruylant, Brussels

Nuyts A (2005) Le nouveau droit international privé belge. JT:177

Pertegas M, Samyn L (2006) Artikel 6, Uitbreiding van de internationale bevoegdheid door wilskeuze. In: Erauw J, Fallon M, Guldix E, Meeusen J, Pertegas Sender M, van Houtte H, Watté N, Wautelet P (eds) Het Wetboek Internationaal Privaatrecht becommentarieerd. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 32–49

Pertegas Sender M (2005) Le nouveau droit international prive belge. JT:173

Rodger B (2006) Forum Non Conveniens Post-Owusu. J Private Int Law 2:71–97CrossRef

Senechal J (2008) Le règlement Bruxelles I, les clauses internationales d’élection de for et d’arbitrage. In: Defossez M, Senechal J (eds) Enforcing contracts. Aspects procéduraux de l’exécution des contrats transfrontaliers en droit européen et international. Larcier, Brussels

Storme H (2006) Artikel 25, Gronden voor weigering van de erkenning of de uitvoerbaarverklaring. In: Erauw J, Fallon M, Guldix E, Meeusen J, Pertgeas Sender M, van Houtte H, Watté N, Wautelet P (eds) Het Wetboek Internationaal Privaatrecht becommentarieerd. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 117–123

Taelman P (1988) Gebruik en misbruik van procesrecht. TPR:89

Van Boxstael JL (2010) Code DIP. Premiers commentaires. Larcier, Brussels

Van Calster G, Verhulst M (2013) “Bevoegdheid: Europese ontwikkelingen” in Themis 76 - Internationaal privaatrecht. Die Keure, Bruges

Van Calster G (2015) L’EEX nouveau (ofte Brussel Ibis) est arrivé. De hervorming van de moeder van het Europees Internationaal Privaatrecht. RW:1443

Van Calster G (2016) European private international law. Hart, Oxford

Van Calster G (2019) The Brussels international business court. A carrot sunk by caviar. In Kramer X, Sorabji J (eds) International business courts – a European and global perspective. Eleven, Den Haag, forthcoming

Van Houtte H, Verlinden J (2004) Het wetboek internationaal privaatrecht - Een inleiding. In: Van Houtte H (ed) Internationaal privaatrecht. Themis, vol 28. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 7–16

Vanlergberghe B (2015) Rechtsmisbruik in het procesrecht. In: Van Oevelen A, Rutten S, Rozie J (eds) Rechtsmisbruik. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 115–147

Verbruggen C (2013) La compatibilité d’une clause (unilatérale) optionnelle de juridiction avec l’article 23 du Règlement Bruxelles I. TBH:443

Verhoeven M (2017) Vliegtuigpassagiers hoeven niet naar buitenlandse rechtbank. Juristenkrant:3

Voet S (2007) Over de bindende bevoegdheidsovereenkomst. P&B, pp 67–68

Wautelet P (2004) Le nouveau régime des décisions étrangères dans le Code de droit international privé. P&B:208

Wautelet P (2008) Les litiges contractuels transfrontaliers - le domaine résiduel du droit international privé: le droit belge. In: Defossez M, Senechal J (eds) Enforcing contracts. Aspects procéduraux de l’exécution de contrats transfrontaliers en droit européen et international. Larcier, Brussels, pp 133–159

Wautelet P (2013) Forumkeuzebeding. In: Ballon G-L, De Decker H, Sagaert V, Terryn E, Tilleman B, Verbeke AL (eds) Gemeenrechtelijke clausules. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 1697–1738

Hartley T, Dogauchi M (2013) Explanatory Report on the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention. Available on https://bit.ly/2z1QCmC. Accessed 2 Sept 2018

Van Calster G (2017a) Turkish Supreme Court rejects choice of court agreement on basis of ‘good faith’. Accepts asymmetric clauses. Available on https://bit.ly/2hHNvMf. Accessed 2 Sept 2018

Van Calster G (2017b) AMT v Marzillier: UK Supreme Court sides with reluctant Court of Appeal on inducement to breach choice of court agreement. Available on http://bit.ly/2LLkOY0. Accessed 2 Sept 2018

Titel: Belgium: Optional Choice of Court Agreements, Legal Uncertainty Despite a Modern Legal Framework
verfasst von: Geert Van Calster
Michiel Poesen
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Optional Choice of Court Agreements in Private International Law
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23913-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-23914-5

Copyright-Jahr: 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23914-5_3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner