Gerechtshof Amsterdam; 2022-02-15; Trustpilot; 200.295.283/01
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2022:387
Date: 2022-02-15
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82022NL0215(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
Gerechtshof Amsterdam (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) - 15 February 2022 - ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2022:387
Agreement conferring jurisdiction – Mutual consent – Disclosure requirements
The Brussels I Regulation (recast)(1).
Trustpilot is a Danish company which operates the website Trustpilot.nl in the Netherlands. On that website, consumers can leave reviews of products and services provided by other companies. A company Interreal created a business profile (account) on Trustpilot.nl in the name of the company Esteon. The parties are bound by the Service Subscription Agreement (SSA), which contains an agreement conferring jurisdiction.
The case concerns reviews of companies Esteon and Scanler on the website Trustpilot.nl that were not based on real customer experiences. Interreal sought to prevent these fake reviews from appearing and to obtain information about the authors of the reviews that were not based on real customer experiences.
Trustpilot argued, inter alia, that the Dutch courts do not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute. It relied on an exclusive agreement conferring jurisdiction that designates the Danish court as competent to hear claims.
The agreement conferring jurisdiction must be concluded in respect of a ‘specific legal relationship’. An agreement conferring jurisdiction that covers all disputes that may arise between the parties from any cause whatsoever is invalid. Trustpilot’s first ground of appeal was directed against the lower court’s view that the agreement conferring jurisdiction did not meet the requirement of a specific legal relationship because of the addition of the words ‘including non-contractual disputes or claims’. This ground of appeal was successful. (4.7.)
The Trustpilot’s further grounds of appeal were directed against the lower court’s finding that the parties did not reach consent on an agreement conferring jurisdiction. These grounds of appeal also succeeded. The Court of Appeal makes the following observations. (4.8.)
4.10 Trustpilot argued that the hyperlink to the SSA in the order form provided the option to save and print these terms and conditions. Interreal has not adequately disputed this. Therefore, it must be assumed that a possibility to durable record the SSA, including the agreement conferring jurisdiction, was provided prior to the conclusion of the subscriptions. This satisfies the disclosure requirement of Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (See Case C-322/14(2))
4.13 The conclusion is that the agreement conferring jurisdiction precludes the Dutch court from assuming international jurisdiction over Interreal’s claims relating to the Esteon and Scanler reviews unless Article 35 Brussels I Regulation (recast) applies, as Interreal argues.
The Court of Appeal annulled the judgment of the lower court and declared that it had no jurisdiction to hear Interreal's claims related to Esteon and Scanler reviews (...)
(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).
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 May 2015, Jaouad El Majdoub v CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH., C-322/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:334.