|
II-II. THE PRINCIPLE OBLIGATION IN SEVERAL OBLIGATIONS AND THE Shenavai
Although the De Bloos defined the term “obligation in question”, this could only give a solution in the case of which the plaintiff is pleading only one obligation to support its action. To the new aspect which the plaintiff is pleading more than one obligation, the De Bloos criterion would not give a solution. Then the criterion established in the Shenavai solved this problem.
The plaintiff, Mr Shenavai, an architect domiciled in Germany sued Mr Kreischer who was domiciled in Netherlands for payment for the drawing of construction plans for there summer houses to be built near Rockenhausen. This case raise the issue that is how to decide the jurisdiction if there are number of obligations forming the basis of the judicial proceedings.
Obviously, the place of the payment is not a suitable obligation to determine the jurisdiction. The Court held the opinion that contracts of provision of professional services are linked to the place where the activities are pursued, which determines the application of mandatory rules and collective agreements. It is on account of those particularities that the court of the place in which the characteristic obligation of such contracts is to be performed is considered best suited to resolving the disputes to which one or more obligations under such contracts may give rise. Considering these particularities of the contract, in the case of a dispute concerned with a number of obligations arising under the same contract and forming the basis of the proceedings commenced by the plaintiff, the court before which the matter is brought will, when determining whether it has jurisdiction, be guided by the maxim accessorium sequitur principale; in other words, where various obligations are at issue, it will be the principal obligation which will determine its jurisdiction.
This dictum was reiterated in the Mulox , where the Court reaffirmed that if there are several obligations forming the basis of the plaintiff’s action, it was the principle obligation which would establish jurisdiction.
|
