The decision of the European Court of Justice (‘ECJ’) in Feniks sp z o o v Azteca Products & Services SL provides further insight into the demarcation of the head of jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract, which is contained in the Brussels I Regulation Recast, Article 7(1). In particular, the decision characterises an avoidance action, a so-called actio pauliana, as a contractual matter. As a consequence, disputes that are based on such an action can be brought in the court of the place of performance of the contractual obligation the avoidance action aims to protect. This contribution will explain that while the decision of the ECJ is seemingly in line with recent precedents, it cannot be reconciled with the principle of predictability of jurisdiction, because the decision is based on an overly broad interpretation of the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’. The ramification of the decision is that a third party that is somehow involved in the contractual dealings of others is at risk of being sued in the place of performance of a contract with which it has a too tenuous connection.
|Journal||European Review of Contract Law|
|Publication status||Published - 27 Mar 2019|
- actio pauliana
- matters relating to a contract
- regulation N0 1215/2012 (Brussel I Regulation Recast