PRACTICAL CASE

EQUINOR is a Norwegian-based company that owns contaminated land in a French town near
Toulouse. In January 2020, it entered into negotiations with AMIANTEC, S.A., a company with
its registered office and central administration in Barakaldo. These negotiations were conducted
through the Norwegian company's branch in Madrid.

In March 2021, the contract was signed in Madrid between EQUINOR and AMIANTEC,
whereby the Spanish company was obliged to carry out the decontamination of the land. The
contract was drawn up in English and set a completion date of 30 October 2021.

The Spanish company sent its own workers, of Spanish nationality, to France to carry out the
clean-up work. The decontamination work was completed on 25 November 2021 but, despite
repeated requests for payment for the work carried out, the Norwegian company did not pay the
invoice for the sum of €78,500 claimed.

Therefore, on 1 April 2022, AMIANTEC brought an action before the Madrid Courts for the
enforcement of the obligation to pay the price stipulated in the contract, plus interest for late
payment. On 5 May 2022, the Norwegian company brought an action before the French courts
for breach of contract, based on the delay in the date of completion of the works.

The Spanish company's lawyers claimed lis pendens in this second proceeding, and, in the
alternative, sought to justify the delay in fulfilling the contract on the grounds of the need to
comply with strict French environmental regulations, which required periodic inspections of the
progress of the work. Against this allegation, the Norwegian company's representatives argue
that the Spanish courts do not have jurisdiction, since under Spanish law, in the absence of
contractual provisions, the place of payment is understood to be the debtor's domicile (art. 1.171
of the Spanish Civil Code), so that Spain cannot be understood to be the place of performance
of the contract. Moreover, they add that there is no identity of cause or object between the two
proceedings.

QUESTIONS:

In relation to international jurisdiction:

1. Which legal instrument is applicable to determine the international jurisdiction of the

Spanish and/or French courts?

2. Do the courts of Madrid have jurisdiction to hear AMIANTEC's claim against

EQUINOR?

3. Do the French courts have jurisdiction to hear EQUINOR's claim against AMIANTEC?

4. Do the conditions required for a finding of the plea of international lis pendens raised by
AMIANTEC exist?