The Swedish Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in EU cross-border sales disputes

In a decision dated 18 March 2026 (Case No. Ö 326-25), the Swedish Supreme Court clarified how jurisdiction is to be determined in an EU cross-border sale of goods where the contract does not make the place of delivery clear.

Jurisdiction in private-law disputes is governed by the Brussels I Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012). In disputes relating to the sale of goods, proceedings may be brought either in the courts of the respondent’s domicile or, alternatively, in the courts of the place of performance. For sales contracts, and unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the place of performance is the place in a member state where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered.

Drawing on Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case law, the Supreme Court held that, where the contract does not identify the place of delivery, that place must be determined autonomously (that is, by an independent EU-law assessment rather than by national law). It is the place where the physical handover took place or should have taken place, such that the purchaser obtained or should have obtained actual power of disposal over the goods at the transaction’s final destination. The decisive factor is therefore not when the goods were handed over to an independent carrier, but where the purchaser obtained actual power of disposal over them.

In the present case, that meant that the place of performance was Örebro, where the goods were physically handed over to the buyer, and that Örebro District Court therefore had jurisdiction. The ruling is consistent with CJEU case law and the scheme of the Brussels I Regulation by preserving a close link between the dispute and the court hearing it.

For businesses engaged in international trade, the decision underscores the need to address delivery terms expressly and to document them consistently across contracts, order confirmations and correspondence. The separate opinion by Justice Danelius also highlights that clear delivery clauses and, where appropriate, careful use of Incoterms may help reduce uncertainty as to jurisdiction.