Advertisement

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

  • Geert Van CalsterEmail author
  • Michiel Poesen
Chapter
Part of the Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law book series (GSCL, volume 37)

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.

References

  1. Bambust I (2017) Brussels international business court. Juristenkrant:16Google Scholar
  2. Carlier J-Y (2005) Le Code belge de droit international privé. RCDIP:11Google Scholar
  3. de Meyer J, Storme H (2014) Artikel 97 WIPR. In: Couwenberg I, Hansenbout A, Vanfraechem L (eds) Internationaal Privaatrecht. Duiding. Larcier, Brussel, pp 757–758Google Scholar
  4. Dickinson A, Lein E (2015) The Brussels I regulation recast. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Erauw J (2004–2005) Het vernieuwde internationaal privaatrecht van België wordt van kracht. RW:121Google Scholar
  6. Erauw J, Fallon M (2004) De nieuwe wet op het internationaal privaatrecht. Kluwer, AntwerpGoogle Scholar
  7. Erauw J, Storme H (2009) Beginselen van het Belgisch Privaatrecht. Internationaal privaatrecht. Kluwer, MechelenGoogle Scholar
  8. Fallon M, Rigaux F (2005) Droit international privé. Larcier, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. Francq S (2015) De Bruxelles I à Bruxelles Ibis. JT:89Google Scholar
  10. 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 18:83–142Google Scholar
  11. Hartley T (2013) Choice-of-court agreements under the European and international instruments. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Kruger T, Verhellen J (2016) Internationaal privaatrecht. De essentie. Die Keure, BrugesGoogle Scholar
  13. Laenens J (1981) De bevoegdheidsovereenkomst naar Belgisch recht. Kluwer, AntwerpGoogle Scholar
  14. Magnus U, Mankowski P (2016) European commentaries on private international law, vol 1. Verlag Dr Otto Schmidt, MunichGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 15–75Google Scholar
  16. Nuyts A (2003) L’exception de forum non conveniens. Bruylant, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  17. Nuyts A (2005) Le nouveau droit international privé belge. JT:177Google Scholar
  18. 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 32–49Google Scholar
  19. Pertegas Sender M (2005) Le nouveau droit international prive belge. JT:173Google Scholar
  20. Rodger B (2006) Forum Non Conveniens Post-Owusu. J Private Int Law 2:71–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 117–123Google Scholar
  23. Taelman P (1988) Gebruik en misbruik van procesrecht. TPR:89Google Scholar
  24. Van Boxstael JL (2010) Code DIP. Premiers commentaires. Larcier, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  25. Van Calster G, Verhulst M (2013) “Bevoegdheid: Europese ontwikkelingen” in Themis 76 - Internationaal privaatrecht. Die Keure, BrugesGoogle Scholar
  26. Van Calster G (2015) L’EEX nouveau (ofte Brussel Ibis) est arrivé. De hervorming van de moeder van het Europees Internationaal Privaatrecht. RW:1443Google Scholar
  27. Van Calster G (2016) European private international law. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. 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, forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 7–16Google Scholar
  30. Vanlergberghe B (2015) Rechtsmisbruik in het procesrecht. In: Van Oevelen A, Rutten S, Rozie J (eds) Rechtsmisbruik. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 115–147Google Scholar
  31. Verbruggen C (2013) La compatibilité d’une clause (unilatérale) optionnelle de juridiction avec l’article 23 du Règlement Bruxelles I. TBH:443Google Scholar
  32. Verhoeven M (2017) Vliegtuigpassagiers hoeven niet naar buitenlandse rechtbank. Juristenkrant:3Google Scholar
  33. Voet S (2007) Over de bindende bevoegdheidsovereenkomst. P&B, pp 67–68Google Scholar
  34. Wautelet P (2004) Le nouveau régime des décisions étrangères dans le Code de droit international privé. P&B:208Google Scholar
  35. 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 133–159Google Scholar
  36. 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 1697–1738Google Scholar

Online Sources

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of International and European Law, KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Institute of Private International Law, KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations