Law in the process of globalisation (2018), (стр. 239-250)
АУТОР: Milena Petrovic
The paper discusses the judgment C-381/08 of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) of 25 February 2010 on a reference for preliminary ruling made by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in the case of the Car Trim. This reference for preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 5(1) (b) of Brussels I Regulation and, more specifically, concerns the issue of how to determine the place of delivery of the goods in the case of contracts involving carriage of goods. The question of BGH was whether in case of a sales contract involving carriage of goods, the place where the goods were delivered or should have been delivered is to be determined by reference to the place of physical transfer to the purchaser. ECJ came to the conclusion that in the case of a sale involving carriage of goods, the first indent of Article 5 (1) (b) of Brussels I Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the place where, under the contract, the goods sold were delivered or should have been delivered must be determined on the basis of the provisions of that contract. Where it is impossible to determine the place of delivery on that basis, without reference to the substantive law applicable to the contract, that place 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.
European Court of Justice, contract for the sale of goods, place of delivery of the goods, jurisdiction
- Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, of 27.09.1968., as amended, OJ C 027, 26.01.1998 (consolidated version),
- Ferrari, F., Remarks on the autonomous interpretation of the Brussels Regulation, in particular of the concept of “place of delivery“ under Art. 5(1)(b), and the Vienna Sales Convention (on the occasion of a recent Italian court decision) available at: www.ialsnet.org/meetings/business/Ferrari franko-USA.pdf,
- Jenard Report on the Convention on the jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, (1968) OJ No C59/1.
- Lupoi, M. A., A Year in the Life of Regulation (UE) N. 44 of 2001, available at: www.academia.edu/887924/A-year-in-the-life-of-regulation-EU-44-of-2001.
- Magnus, U. and P. Mankowski, European Commentaries on Private International Law – Brussels I Regulation, European Law Publisher, 2007.
- Michaels, R., Re-Placements. Jurisdiction for Contracts and Torts under the Brussels I Regulation When Arts. 5(1) and 5(3) Do Not Designate a Place in a Member State, International Civil Litigation in Europe and Relations with Third States, 2005.
- Petrović, M., Posebna međunarodna nadležnost za sporove iz ugovornih odnosa prema pravu EU i pravu Republike Srbije, Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu, 1/2014.
- Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 OJ L 351/1 (the ‘Recast Regulation’)
- Regulation 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 12, 16.01.2001.
- The Opinion of Advocate General Mazak delivered on 24 September 2009, ECLI:EU:C:2009:577,
- van Lith, H., International Jurisdiction and Commercial Litigation – Uniform Rules for Contract Disputes, The Hague, 2009.