Hoge Raad, civiele kamer, arrest van 24/09/1999 Technisch Handelsbureau C. van Maanen BV / Construzioni Meccaniche Caorle SpA
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:HR:1999:ZC2968
Date: 1999-09-24
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968
Origin: Netherlands

81999NL0924(01)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff is seated in the Netherlands and the defendant in Italy. The plaintiff sued both the defendant and a Dutch company in the Rechtbank 's-Hertogenbosch (NL). The defendant contests the jurisdiction of the Rechtbank, invoking a jurisdiction clause. According to the Rechtbank, the jurisdiction clause was not sufficiently proven and jurisdiction could be based on Article 6 (1) Brussels Convention. On appeal, the Hof 's-Hertogenbosch (NL) held that there was a valid jurisdiction clause in the contract concluded between the two parties, who were succeeded by the present parties, and therefore it refused jurisdiction by virtue of Article 17 Brussels Convention.
The Hoge Raad (NL) considers that if there is a valid jurisdiction clause between two parties, Article 6 (1) Brussels Convention cannot be invoked successfully by one of these parties against the other. Further, according to the Hoge Raad, if a party succeeds another party with regard to a contract containing a jurisdiction clause, that clause is valid irrespective of whether the succeeding party consented to it. However, in the present case, the Hof held that the jurisdiction clause is valid although the contract was only signed by one of the original parties. The other party invoked the existence of the contract in proceedings against a third party. This is insufficient, however, to meet the requirements of an agreement "evidenced in writing" as described in Article 17 (1) (a) Brussels Convention, as that jurisdiction was conferred by an express oral agreement confirmed in writing by one of the parties and not objected to by the other.