This article calls for a reassessment of the methodology in determining the place of contractual performance under Article 7(1) of the Brussels I Regulation Recast. The first part of the article deals with Article 7(1)(a). It argues that in light of the adoption of autonomous linking factors under Article 7(1)(b), more types of contracts presently not covered within the ambits of Article 7(1)(b) should centralise jurisdiction at the places of performance of their characteristic obligations. The second part of the article considers the way Article 7(1) operates when there are multiple places of performance under the contract. The test devised by the Court of Justice of the European Union in this regard is not only difficult to apply, but the application of the test also often does not guarantee a close connection between the claim and the court taking jurisdiction. This article argues that when a claim is made in respect of a contractual obligation to be performed in more than one Member State, Article 4 should be applied instead of Article 7(1).

中文翻译：

---

根据我重铸的布鲁塞尔第 7(1) 条确定演出地点

本文呼吁重新评估根据布鲁塞尔 I 规则修订第 7 条第 1 款确定合同履行地点的方法。该条的第一部分涉及第 7(1)(a) 条。它认为，鉴于第 7 条第（1）款（b）项下采用了自主联系因素，更多类型的合同目前未涵盖在第 7 条第（1）款（b）项的范围内，应将管辖权集中在履行地点。他们特有的义务。该条的第二部分考虑了当合同规定有多个履行地点时第 7 条第 1 款的运作方式。欧盟法院在这方面设计的测试不仅难以适用，但测试的应用也常常不能保证索赔与管辖法院之间的密切联系。本文认为，当就一项在多个成员国内履行的合同义务提出索赔时，应适用第 4 条而不是第 7 条第 1 款。