Jurisdiction clauses across borders: are you playing a home game or an away match?

You rarely operate within a single city today, let alone within one country. A project in Brussels, a client in Paris, a collaboration in Portugal. The deal is closed, the work progresses… until a dispute arises.Then the question emerges: where should you litigate? Do you bring the other party before “your” court, or do you have to go abroad yourself? At that moment, attention shifts to the jurisdiction clause — a often underestimated provision that determines whether you litigate close to home or unexpectedly across the border. Lawyers Stefanie Claeys and Larissa Blondeel provide practical guidance on how to legally secure your choice of forum. Lawyers 

Belgium: freedom of contract as a starting point

Within Belgian borders, the starting point lies in Article 624 of the Judicial Code. This provision determines which court has jurisdiction, for example based on the defendant’s domicile or the place where obligations are performed.

For businesses, this framework is not mandatory. You are therefore free to determine the competent court yourself, for example through your general terms and conditions included in your offer.

Practical example: the Brussels office

Suppose you are a specialised company based in Mechelen and you furnish an office for a client in Brussels. The offer is approved, the work is carried out, and invoices follow. The terms include a standard jurisdiction clause: all disputes fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Mechelen.

If a dispute arises afterwards, for example regarding the quality of the delivered furniture, you are often on solid ground in a B2B context.

This means you can usually keep the dispute in Mechelen, even without a signed contract. Your “home game” seems well prepared.

B2C: stricter rules for jurisdiction clauses

Now suppose you are not furnishing an office for a business, but carrying out an interior project for a private individual. Your general terms again include your familiar jurisdiction clause.

While businesses can still deviate from standard rules among themselves, the Code of Economic Law sets a clear boundary when it comes to consumers. “In that context, the jurisdiction clause will not hold,” says Stefanie Claeys. “A clause that directs a consumer away from their legally competent court is considered unfair.”

Attention: acceptance and awareness remain crucial. As mentioned earlier, general terms — and thus a jurisdiction clause — only form part of the agreement if your client had the opportunity to take note of them and has accepted them.

Between businesses, you can steer your choice of forum; with consumers, the law determines the limits.

The international pitfall: the Brussels I bis Regulation

As soon as a client is located in another EU Member State, the framework changes fundamentally. Belgian flexibility gives way to the Brussels I bis Regulation, which takes precedence over national law and imposes much stricter requirements on jurisdiction clauses.

“An unprotested invoice is not sufficient. Even payment does not prove acceptance,” says Larissa Blondeel. “European rules require that consent to the jurisdiction clause can be clearly and precisely demonstrated.”

A costly lesson: the French retail chain

Suppose you once again furnish premises, this time for a retailer in Paris. You work with offers and invoices that include your standard jurisdiction clause, designating the courts of Mechelen.

This is not a fictional case: a recent judgment of the Ghent Enterprise Court (Bruges division, 10 February 2026) shows how quickly things can turn. A Belgian company attempted to bring a French client before a Belgian court based on its general terms and conditions.

The court ruled otherwise. There was no jurisdiction in Belgium: the client had not signed anything and there was no established commercial relationship. The jurisdiction clause was set aside, and proceedings had to be conducted in France, with all the additional costs and delays that entails.

How to make your jurisdiction clause enforceable: three checks for your international contracts

If you operate internationally, you cannot afford uncertainty. The Brussels I bis Regulation provides three ways to validly establish a choice of forum.

1. The first and safest route is a written agreement. Work with a signed offer or contract that explicitly refers to your general terms and conditions. A signature remains the strongest evidence.
2. Secondly, a jurisdiction clause may be valid if it forms part of an established course of dealing. This requires more than a single prior transaction — it must reflect a consistent and ongoing business relationship between the parties.
3. Finally, a jurisdiction clause may be based on an international trade usage within a particular sector. While this option exists, it is often difficult to prove in practice.

If you want legal certainty internationally, you must establish your choice of forum explicitly and in advance. What only appears on an invoice is usually too late.

NOMA: legal support with international strength

A jurisdiction clause often provides a comfortable safety net in Belgium, but across borders, that safety can quickly disappear. The key to enforceability lies in proactive acceptance — not afterwards, but at the moment the agreement is concluded.

NOMA’s contract law specialists guide you through this process, with particular attention to your professional context. From a targeted review of your workflow to drafting tailored general terms and contracts.

Would you like to assess whether your agreements hold up internationally? NOMA will gladly advise you personally at our offices in Bruges, Kortrijk, and Brussels. Get in touch.

In June, NOMA is organising a live seminar on general terms and conditions, tailored to entrepreneurs. Leave your details here and we will keep you informed.