Hof Amsterdam, uitspraak van 18/08/2005 2197/03 en 278/04
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2005:AV0160
Date: 2005-08-18
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82005NL0818(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The defendant is a property investment company that has its seat in Germany and that invests in property in Rotterdam (NL). The claimant is a life insurance company with its seat in Germany. In 1997 the claimant approved a loan to A, who was domiciled in Germany. The claims held by the defendant were pledged to the claimant as security for the loan. After A no longer kept up the repayments, the claimant sued the defendant based on the security interest before the Rechtbank of Amsterdam (NL). The defendant entered an appearance with respect to the action without contesting jurisdiction and brought a counterclaim. In addition, it issued a third party notice against its lawyers and financial advisers, all of whom have their seats in the Netherlands. After a date had already been set for pronouncement of judgment, the defendant applied for a stay of proceedings pursuant to Article 28 Brussels I Regulation. In Germany, an action was also pending between the parties in which a referral to the Rechtbank of Amsterdam had been sought. The proceedings should be stayed, it was argued, so that the actions could be consolidated after the referral. The Rechtbank dismissed the application. The defendant lodged an appeal to the Gerechtshof of Amsterdam (NL).
The Hof of Amsterdam (NL) affirms the judgment of the court of first instance. It was correct to dismiss the application for a stay of the proceedings. Article 28 Brussels I Regulation requires that the procedural law of the court to which the referral is made permits the consolidation of actions. According to Dutch procedural law, a consolidation of two actions is only possible if it is sought at a point in time prior to the making of any substantive objections. The proceedings were already at the stage of pronouncement of judgment. The application is thus inadmissible for reason of delay. The Hof dismisses the appeal.