Hoge Raad, 1e kamer, arrest van 04/04/2008 Zuid-Chemie BV / Philippo's Mineralenfabriek NV/SA
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:HR:2008:BC3305
Date: 2008-04-04
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82008NL0404(02)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff, seated in the Netherlands, manufactures and distributes artificial fertilizer. It ordered a product called "Micromix" from A, seated in Rotterdam (NL). A, in turn, ordered the Micromix from the defendant, seated in Belgium. The defendant manufactured the Micromix in its factory in Belgium, where the plaintiff picked it up. The plaintiff processed the Micromix in its factory in the Netherlands into artificial fertilizer and sold a part of that fertilizer to its customers. It later turned out that the Micromix contained zinc sulfate, which suggested high levels of cadmium, which made the fertilizer unusable. The plaintiff filed an action for damages against the defendant before the Rechtbank of Middelburg (NL). The Rechtbank declared itself lacking in jurisdiction. The ruling was affirmed on appeal by the Gerechtshof 's-Gravenhage (NL). The plaintiff appealed to the Hoge Raad (NL).
The Hoge Raad (NL) finds that the dispute is over the phrase "place where the harmful event occurred" within the meaning of Article 5(3) Brussels I Regulation, and that to decide the proceedings before it, the court requires an interpretation of this phrase. The phrase "place where the harmful event occurred" in Article 5(3) Brussels I Regulation means both the place where the events giving rise to the harm occurred ("Handlungsort"), as well as the place where the original damages were suffered ("Erfolgsort"). Regarding the place where the harmful event occurred, the Rechtbank expressed the opinion that the original damages occurred at the defendant's location in Belgium, as the tainted product was delivered to the plaintiff there. The Hof 's-Gavenhage (NL) also added that the alleged misconduct of the defendants is the deciding factor, and not the ensuing contamination of the fertilizer during further processing. The Hoge Raad (NL) stays the proceedings and submits a request for a preliminary ruling to the ECJ.