Auteur: H. Wevers http://www.basicguidetointernationalbusinesslaw.noordhoff.nl/ isbn: 978-90-01-81554-7
© 2013 Noordhoff Uitgevers bv
Answers to the Exercises of Chapter 3
– EEX
Exercise 3.1
The article to be used here is Art. 22 EEX; this article gives a special provision in case the object of litigation is immovable property. The immovable property is situated in Germany, so under this Article a German court of law has jurisdiction in this case.
Exercise 3.2
The article to be used here is Art. 2 EEX: the criterion is that the court of law of the place of residence of the defendant has jurisdiction. The defendant is
Staelens who lives in Belgium, so under this Article a Belgian court of law has jurisdiction. As this is a situation of alternative jurisdiction, one has to combine
2 EEX with 5,1 EEX (alternative jurisdiction). Art. 5,1 EEX applies to matters related to a contract, the criterion is place of performance of the obligation in question. The obligation in question is the delivery of the goods. As the place of delivery is Belgium, under this Article a Belgian court of law (again) has jurisdiction. The plaintiff has no other option than to turn to a Belgian court of law.
Exercise 3.3
Question 1
The article to be used here is Art. 23 EEX: the choice of the parties for a
French court of law is made in writing as both parties have signed the contract of sale. A French court of law has jurisdiction.
Question 2
The article to be used here is Art. 2 EEX; the criterion is that the court of law of the place of residence of the defendant has jurisdiction. As De Mol is the defendant and has his residence in Holland, a Dutch court of law has jurisdiction. This is a situation of alternative jurisdiction: one has to combine
Art. 2 EEX with Art. 5,3 EEX, as this is a matter related to tort. The tort was committed by De Mol. Article 5,3 EEX states that court of law of the place where the tort was committed has jurisdiction. As the tort was committees in
France, a French court of law has jurisdiction. So, in this case the plaintiff chooses between a Dutch and a French court of law.
Question 3
It is not a matter of insurance, as the conflict does not take place between an insurer and his client. Same answer as to question 2.
Art. 2 EEX: the court of law of the place of residence of the defendant has jurisdiction. As De Mol is the defendant and has his residence in Holland, a
Dutch court of law has jurisdiction. Alternative jurisdiction: combine Art. 2 EEX with Art. 5,3 EEX, as this Article is about matters related to tort. The criterion of Art. 5, 3 EEX is that the court of law of the place where the tort was committed has jurisdiction. De Mol committed a tort in France, so a French
A Basic Guide to International Business Law
1

Auteur: H. Wevers http://www.basicguidetointernationalbusinesslaw.noordhoff.nl/ isbn: 978-90-01-81554-7
© 2013 Noordhoff Uitgevers bv court of law has jurisdiction. So, in this case the plaintiff chooses between a
Dutch and a French court of law.
Exercise 3.4
Question 1
Art. 2 EEX: the court of law of the place of residence of the defendant has jurisdiction. The defendant is Ancelotti, who lives in Italy, so an Italian court of law has jurisdiction according to this Article. As this is a situation of alternative jurisdiction, one has to combine 2 EEX with 5,1 EEX (alternative jurisdiction).
Art. 5,1 EEX applies, as this is a matter related to a contract. The criterion of
Art. 5, 1 EEX is that the court of law of the place of performance of the obligation in question has jurisdiction. The obligation in question is giving advice; the place where the advice was prepared i.e. given is in the UK. So, under this Article a UK court of law has jurisdiction. The plaintiff makes a choice between these two options.
Question 2
Art. 2 EEX: the court of law of the place of residence of the defendant has jurisdiction. The defendant Westerhagen lives in Germany, so a German court of law has jurisdiction. Alternative jurisdiction, so one has to combine Art. 2
EEX with Art. 5,3 EEX (alternative jurisdiction) as this a matter related to tort.
The criterion of Art. 5, 3 EEX is that court of law of the place where the damage occurred i.e. suffered by Weller has jurisdiction. As the damage was suffered in the UK, a UK court of law has jurisdiction. The plaintiff makes a choice between these two options.
Question 3
Art. 2 EEX: the court of law of the place of residence of the defendant has jurisdiction. The defendant is Weller, who lives in the UK, so a UK court of law has jurisdiction. Alternative jurisdiction, so one has to combine Art. 2 EEX with
5,1 EEX (alternative jurisdiction), as this is a matter related to a contract. The criterion of Art. 5, 1 EEX is that the court of law of the place of performance of the obligation in question has jurisdiction. The obligation in question is payment, but the place for payment of the fee is not mentioned in this case. It is assumed to be the place where the party that has given the advice is domiciled, which is Italy. So an Italian court of law has jurisdiction. The plaintiff makes a choice between these two options.
A Basic Guide to International Business Law
2