Advanced

Avtal anknutna till Internet - Vilken domstol har jurisdiktion enligt Bryssel I-förordningen?

Hilmansson, Anders LU (2012) JURM02 20112
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
När en tvist uppkommer till följd av ett gränsöverskridande avtal uppstår frågan om jurisdiktion. Denna regleras inom EU i Bryssel I-förordningen. Enligt huvudregeln grundas jurisdiktion på svarandens hemvist. Alternativa jurisdiktionsgrunder framgår av artikel 5.1, avseende avtal i allmänhet, och i artikel 15, avseende konsumentavtal. Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka oklarheterna i dessa två artiklar. Särskilt vad avser avtal anknutna till Internet.

Enligt artikel 5.1 Bryssel I är domstolen på uppfyllelseorten behörig. Hur uppfyllelseorten bestäms är dock beroende av kategoriseringen av avtalet. Karakteriseras avtalet som vara, tjänst eller annat enligt Bryssel I? Särskild problematik uppstår vid avtal om mjukvara vilket... (More)
När en tvist uppkommer till följd av ett gränsöverskridande avtal uppstår frågan om jurisdiktion. Denna regleras inom EU i Bryssel I-förordningen. Enligt huvudregeln grundas jurisdiktion på svarandens hemvist. Alternativa jurisdiktionsgrunder framgår av artikel 5.1, avseende avtal i allmänhet, och i artikel 15, avseende konsumentavtal. Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka oklarheterna i dessa två artiklar. Särskilt vad avser avtal anknutna till Internet.

Enligt artikel 5.1 Bryssel I är domstolen på uppfyllelseorten behörig. Hur uppfyllelseorten bestäms är dock beroende av kategoriseringen av avtalet. Karakteriseras avtalet som vara, tjänst eller annat enligt Bryssel I? Särskild problematik uppstår vid avtal om mjukvara vilket ingåtts och uppfyllts via Internet. Mjukvaran består av data vilket i sig varken utgör vara eller tjänst. Mjukvara på ett fysiskt lagringsmedium, exempelvis en CD, är en vara. Frågan är om åtskillnad bör göras i det fall mjukvaran laddas ner via Internet. Skrivandet av data kan utgöra en tjänst men kan samtligt leda till immaterialrättsliga rättigheter för upphovsmannen. Dessa rättigheter kan upplåtas genom ett licensavtal vilket varken är vara eller tjänst. Klargörande från EUD gällande vara, tjänst respektive annat krävs.

Uppfyllelseorten för varor och tjänster, oavsett fysisk uppfyllelse eller uppfyllelse via Internet, bör utifrån avgöranden från EUD primärt bestämas av avtalet. Sekundärt bör den faktiska uppfyllelseorten beaktas förutsatt att denna är förenlig med den gemensamma partsviljan i avtalet. I avsaknad av dessa båda orter bör uppfyllarens hemvist tillmätas relevans. För andra avtal än varor och tjänster bestäms uppfyllelseorten enlig den praxis som finns avseende artikel 5.1 Brysselkonventionen.

Avseende konsumenter har domstolen på konsumentens hemvist jurisdiktion om artikel 15 Bryssel I är tillämplig. Tillämpningen förutsätter att en näringsidkare riktar sin verksamhet till konsumentens hemvist, att ett avtal ingåtts mellan dessa parter samt att avtalet ingåtts inom ramen för den riktade verksamheten. Riktningen samt omfattningen av den verksamhet som riktas bedöms utifrån objektiva omständigheter vid avtalets ingående. Detta skapar incitament för näringsidkare att aktivt begränsa sin riktning. (Less)
Abstract
In case of a dispute regarding a cross-border contract the first question concerns jurisdiction. Within the EU the jurisdiction is regulated in the Brussels Regulation (sv. Bryssel I). The general rule of jurisdiction in this regulation is based upon the domicile of the defendant. Alternative grounds for jurisdiction are provided in article 5.1, regarding contracts in general, and in article 15, regarding consumer contracts specifically. The aim of this essay is to analyse the ambiguities in these two articles. Particularly regarding contracts connected to the Internet.

Article 5.1 Brussels Regulation provides that the court at the place of performance has jurisdiction. The definition of the place of performance is however depending on... (More)
In case of a dispute regarding a cross-border contract the first question concerns jurisdiction. Within the EU the jurisdiction is regulated in the Brussels Regulation (sv. Bryssel I). The general rule of jurisdiction in this regulation is based upon the domicile of the defendant. Alternative grounds for jurisdiction are provided in article 5.1, regarding contracts in general, and in article 15, regarding consumer contracts specifically. The aim of this essay is to analyse the ambiguities in these two articles. Particularly regarding contracts connected to the Internet.

Article 5.1 Brussels Regulation provides that the court at the place of performance has jurisdiction. The definition of the place of performance is however depending on the categorization of the contract. Is the contract characterized as goods, services or as others within the meaning of the Brussels Regulation? Contracts regarding software which are downloaded via the Internet are especially problematic. The software consists of data which is neither goods nor services. Software which is contained within a physical storage medium, for example a CD, is defined as goods. The question is whether there should be made a difference in definition if the software is downloaded. The writing of the data may constitute a service and may also give rise to intellectual property rights belonging to the creator of the software. A license agreement authorizing the licensee to use the licensed software is neither defined as goods nor services. The definitions of goods, services and others need to be disambiguated by the ECJ (sv. EUD)

The place of performance for goods and services, regardless of physical performance or performance over the Internet, should primarily be established by the contract. Secondly the actual place of performance should be regarded given that this place is consistent with the parties´ intentions, as it appears in the contract. In absence of the above mentioned places the domicile of the performer should be decisive for the place of performance. Concerning other contracts than those concerning goods and services, the place of performance is to be determined according to the case law regarding article 5.1 Brussels Convention.

Regarding consumer contracts the courts in the Member State of the consumer’s domicile has jurisdiction when article 15 applies. This, however, requires that the person pursuing his trade or profession has directed his activities to the consumer’s domicile and that these parties have concluded a contract. Furthermore, it is required that the concluded contract falls within the scope of the directed activities. The conclusion of the direction of a website and the extent of these activities are based upon objective circumstances at the time of the conclusion of the contract. This creates an incitement for the person pursuing his trade or profession to expressively state the direction of his website. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Hilmansson, Anders LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Contracts connected to the Internet - The jurisdiction in Brussels Regulation
course
JURM02 20112
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
internationell privaträtt (en. private international law), EU-rätt (en. EU law), Internet
language
Swedish
id
2300729
date added to LUP
2012-03-14 10:26:16
date last changed
2012-03-14 10:26:16
@misc{2300729,
  abstract     = {In case of a dispute regarding a cross-border contract the first question concerns jurisdiction. Within the EU the jurisdiction is regulated in the Brussels Regulation (sv. Bryssel I). The general rule of jurisdiction in this regulation is based upon the domicile of the defendant. Alternative grounds for jurisdiction are provided in article 5.1, regarding contracts in general, and in article 15, regarding consumer contracts specifically. The aim of this essay is to analyse the ambiguities in these two articles. Particularly regarding contracts connected to the Internet. 

Article 5.1 Brussels Regulation provides that the court at the place of performance has jurisdiction. The definition of the place of performance is however depending on the categorization of the contract. Is the contract characterized as goods, services or as others within the meaning of the Brussels Regulation? Contracts regarding software which are downloaded via the Internet are especially problematic. The software consists of data which is neither goods nor services. Software which is contained within a physical storage medium, for example a CD, is defined as goods. The question is whether there should be made a difference in definition if the software is downloaded. The writing of the data may constitute a service and may also give rise to intellectual property rights belonging to the creator of the software. A license agreement authorizing the licensee to use the licensed software is neither defined as goods nor services. The definitions of goods, services and others need to be disambiguated by the ECJ (sv. EUD) 

The place of performance for goods and services, regardless of physical performance or performance over the Internet, should primarily be established by the contract. Secondly the actual place of performance should be regarded given that this place is consistent with the parties´ intentions, as it appears in the contract. In absence of the above mentioned places the domicile of the performer should be decisive for the place of performance. Concerning other contracts than those concerning goods and services, the place of performance is to be determined according to the case law regarding article 5.1 Brussels Convention. 

Regarding consumer contracts the courts in the Member State of the consumer’s domicile has jurisdiction when article 15 applies. This, however, requires that the person pursuing his trade or profession has directed his activities to the consumer’s domicile and that these parties have concluded a contract. Furthermore, it is required that the concluded contract falls within the scope of the directed activities. The conclusion of the direction of a website and the extent of these activities are based upon objective circumstances at the time of the conclusion of the contract. This creates an incitement for the person pursuing his trade or profession to expressively state the direction of his website.},
  author       = {Hilmansson, Anders},
  keyword      = {internationell privaträtt (en. private international law),EU-rätt (en. EU law),Internet},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Avtal anknutna till Internet - Vilken domstol har jurisdiktion enligt Bryssel I-förordningen?},
  year         = {2012},
}