|
The Court held the opinion and then interpreted that the obligation in question “refers to the contractual obligation forming the basis of the legal proceedings” . This interpretation gave a definition of “obligation in question” clearly that is “the obligation to be taken into account is that which corresponds to the contractual right on which the plaintiff''s action is based.” To explain the reason, the Court said that the Brussels Convention was intended to determine the international jurisdiction and facilitate the recognition of judgment in contracting States. This objective implies to avoid creating a number of courts have jurisdiction in respect of one and the same contract. If the obligation in question in Article 5(1) refers to any obligation under the contract, this will result a number of courts according to different obligation in the contract have jurisdiction in respect of the same contract. For this reason, only the obligation corresponding to the contractual right on which the plaintiff’s action is based should be the proper obligation and thus only one certain court has jurisdiction on the dispute. Although there might be more than one obligation the plaintiff could choose to rely on, only which obligation the plaintiff has in fact chosen is the basis of the action which is the obligation in question.
Besides the De Bloos, there are several other cases decided by the European Court of Justice and confirmed the principle established in the De Bloos. The Shenavai which will be discussed below on another feature is one of them. The Court confirmed that “for the purposes of determining the place of performance within the meaning of Article 5, the obligation to be taken into account was that which corresponded to the contractual right on which the plaintiff'' s action was based. It ruled that, in a case where the plaintiff asserted the right to be paid damages or sought dissolution of the contract on the ground of the wrongful conduct of the other party, that obligation was still that which arose under the contract and the non-performance of which was relied upon to support such claims.”
|
