Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden; 2024-07-08; Weener XL; 200.337.423
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:GHARL:2024:4509
Date: 2024-07-08
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82024NL0708(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden, 8 July 2024, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2024:4509
Case 200.337.423
The defendant was employed by Weener XL (hereinafter ‘the employer’). The employer applied to the Kantonrechter (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) to terminate the defendant’s employment contract with the defendant. The defendant was summoned in Belgium by a judicial officer but did not appear at the hearing. The Court of First Instance terminated the employment contract. In his appeal, the defendant challenged the fact that he had been properly summoned and stated that he was residing in Spain at the time. He requested the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) to uphold the termination and to award him a transitional payment and fair compensation.
Does the Dutch court have jurisdiction to hear the employer’s application for termination, given that the defendant resided in another Member State? The case was examined in the light of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1).
According to Article 22(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), the employer’s claim can only be brought in the Member State in which the employee is domiciled. Since the defendant was domiciled in either Belgium or Spain, the Belgian or Spanish courts had jurisdiction unless the defendant had expressly submitted to the jurisdiction of the Dutch court. Since the defendant did not appear before the Court of First Instance, the court couldn't ascertain whether the defendant had accepted the jurisdiction of the Dutch court.
According to Article 26(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), the court must ensure that the employee is aware of his right to contest the court’s jurisdiction. The Dutch court did not adequately verify its jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance did not have jurisdiction to terminate the employment contract and annulled the decision of 24 July 2019.
(1) Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast).