Rechtbank Breda, uitspraak van 02/07/2007 175479/KG ZA 07-287
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:RBBRE:2007:4239
Date: 2007-07-02
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82007NL0702(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff with its seat in the Netherlands operates an import company. Between 2003 and 2006, it prepared the customs declarations for the import cargo of the defendant, domiciled in Belgium. This included shipments of metal from China, which were delivered to various final destinations throughout Europe. In accordance with the instructions of the defendant, the plaintiff declared the cargo as duty-free "scrap molybdenum". An inspection by the Dutch customs control in 2006, however, discovered that the shipments were actually "raw molybdenum", on which a 3% import tax was imposed. The customs control levied the duties against the plaintiff and garnished the amount from the plaintiff's security deposit held by the customs control. The plaintiff demanded payment from the defendant in interlocutory proceedings before the Rechtbank of Breda (NL) for the import taxes imposed as well as for a security deposit for back payments and fines or penalties to come. It based jurisdiction on the applicable Dutch conditions on freight forwarding. The defendant disputed the court's jurisdiction.
The Rechtbank of Breda (NL) does not address the plaintiff's argument that Dutch laws on freight forwarding apply here. The Rechtbank has jurisdiction under Article 31 Brussels I Regulation to preside over interlocutory proceedings. The case law on monetary claims specifies the close connection to the State of the court seised required for jurisdiction under Article 31 Brussels I Regulation by an additional two-prong test: the restitution must be guaranteed, and the demanded amount must be enforceable on the assets that are located within the territorial jurisdiction of the court that is deciding on the provisional measures. Both requirements are fulfilled in the present case. The defendant has numerous claims against Dutch clients, and the plaintiff has offered a security deposit for the demanded amount. The Rechtbank declares itself as having jurisdiction.