Rechtbank Arnhem, uitspraak van 04/06/2008 166228 / HA ZA 08-199
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:RBARN:2008:BD3888
Date: 2008-06-04
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82008NL0604(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff, seated in the Netherlands, formed an exclusive distribution and service agreement for the defendant's products with the defendant, seated in England. The contract contained a jurisdiction clause favouring the English courts. The parties negotiated over forming a joint venture to provide security services Europe-wide. The defendant was then taken over by another enterprise and terminated the negotiations by letter. The plaintiff brought action before the Rechtbank of Arnhem (NL) seeking damages for the termination of the contractual negotiations. The defendant objected to jurisdiction. It argued that although A, and not the plaintiff, was the party to the contract, the contractual jurisdiction agreement is nonetheless valid with respect to the plaintiff as well.
The Rechtbank of Arnhem (NL) affirms that the contract was formed with A, and not with the plaintiff. There is no indication that the jurisdiction agreement contained in the contract also formed the basis for the alleged contractual negotiations over forming a joint venture. To that end, the defendant has not sufficiently proven the requirements of Article 23 Brussels I Regulation. The pre-contractual liability for termination of the contractual negotiations, which forms the basis of the action, is according to the ECJ (17.09.2002, C-334/00), a matter relating to tort or delict within the meaning of Article 5(3) Brussels I Regulation, which also can form the basis of a contractual claim within the meaning of Article 5(1) Brussels I Regulation after the negotiations stage. The Rechtbank views the claim of the action as sounding in tort or delict. In keeping with the ECJ (21.09.2001, C-99/245), and pursuant to Article 5(3) Brussels I Regulation, the court for the place where the other contracting party was informed of the termination has jurisdiction. The notice was given in writing, which the plaintiff received at its seat. The Rechtbank declares itself as having jurisdiction.