The interpretation of the provision in the first paragraph of Article 7 of the Brussels I bis Regulation on jurisdiction in matters relating to contracts, despite its seemingly straightforward wording, continues to evolve through the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Since the decision in the Handte case (1992), when the Court of Justice first provided a (negative) definition of the concept of "matters relating to a contract," many years have passed, yet the term remains undefined to this day. The Court of Justice has, through its extensive case law, attempted to delineate the scope of matters that can be considered contractual. A recurring issue in this context is the distinction between contractual and tortious matters, a subject on which the Court of Justice has ruled multiple times. However, clear and uniform criteria for this distinction have not yet been established.
An analysis of recent case law shows that, despite its efforts, the Court of Justice has not succeeded in forming a clear and unequivocal definition of the concept of "matters relating to a contract" or the "place of performance of the obligation in question." As a result, national courts frequently resort to the preliminary ruling procedure, indicating that the provision continues to create legal uncertainty and confusion in practice. This further confirms that the development and interpretation of these concepts remain dynamic, heavily dependent on the specific circumstances of individual cases, suggesting that their final clarification will likely require further development in case law.
|
