Judgment_paragraph 10 · Jakob Handte & Co. GmbH v Traitements Mécano-chimiques des Surfaces SA (C-26/91)

10In replying to the question from the national court, it should first be observed that the Court has consistently held that the phrase ‘matters relating to a contract’ in Article 5(1) of the Convention is to be interpreted independently, having regard primarily to the objectives and general scheme of the Convention, in order to ensure that it is applied uniformly in all the Contracting States (see the judgment in Case 34/82 Martin Peters Bauunternehmung v Zuid Nederlandse Aannemers Vereniging [1983] ECR 987, paragraphs 9 and 10, and the judgment in Case 9/87 Arcado v Haviland [1988] ECR 1539, paragraphs 10 and 11). The phrase should not therefore be taken as referring to how the legal relationship in question before the national court is classified by the relevant national law.

Jakob Handte & Co. GmbH v Traitements Mécano-chimiques des Surfaces SA (C-26/91)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections