Gerechtshof Amsterdam; 2023-12-19; EHG-NL; 200.296.543/01
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2023:3461
Date: 2023-12-19
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82023NL1219(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2023:3461, Gerechtshof Amsterdam (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), 19 December 2023
Case number: 200.296.543/01
European Union legislation: Article 7(1) and (2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1)
EHG-NL is the parent company, established in the Netherlands, of two German subsidiaries, Car Trim and ES Guss. The subsidiaries supply car parts to, inter alia, VW and Porsche (hereinafter ‘VW and others’). EHG-NL instructed the subsidiaries to supply VW and others only against advance payment or security. VW and others terminated the supply agreements with Car Trim. Car Trim claimed damages. A settlement agreement was reached, and the supply agreements continued. Two years later, VW declared the settlement agreement null and void and commenced an action for damages against EHG-NL and its subsidiaries in the German courts.
EHG-NL brought an action before the Dutch courts seeking, inter alia, a declaration that it was not liable for the damages resulting from the cessation of supply and that VW had not validly terminated the settlement agreement.
The Rechtbank Amsterdam (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) declared that it had no jurisdiction to hear EHG-NL’s claims.
The parties agree that EHG-NL instructed its subsidiaries to supply VW only against advance payment or security. It is undisputed that this is a permissible condition under the supply agreements. Therefore, the requirement of a causal link between this instruction and the damage alleged by VW, as required by Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), is not met.
The requested declaration that VW did not validly annul, set aside or terminate the settlement agreement concerns a contractual obligation within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). However, that provision does not provide a basis for the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, since it has not been alleged or proved that any obligation – including the obligation on which the claim is based – arising from the settlement agreement had been performed or should have been performed in Amsterdam. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, there is no other appropriate basis for the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance to hear this claim.
In conclusion, the Court of First Instance was correct in declaring that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims brought by EHG-NL.
(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).