Rechtbank Rotterdam, uitspraak van 21/10/2008 315824/KG ZA 08-915 Global Chartering Limited / Sungleam Maritime Limited
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:RBROT:2008:BG1066
Date: 2008-10-21
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82008NL1021(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The claimant, which has its seat in Mauritius, concluded with the defendant, domiciled in Cyprus, a charterparty in respect of a ship, the "MS Pontodamon", owned by the latter. The charterparty contained an arbitration agreement specifying an arbitral tribunal in London (UK). The claimant complained that the speed and consumption of the "MS Pontodamon" did not correspond to the conditions guaranteed in the charterparty. As a result, it incurred delays and high costs. The claimant seized the log books of the "MS Pontodamon" in the port of Rotterdam (NL) and made copies of them, which were placed in judicial custody. In proceedings for provisional measures before the Rechtsbank of Rotterdam (NL), it demanded permission to access the copies of the log books in judicial custody as well as surrender of further log books under threat of a penalty payment.
The Rechtsbank of Rotterdam applies the Brussels I Regulation on the basis of the defendant’s seat. The jurisdiction of the Rechtsbank, contrary to the arbitration agreement, can only arise under Article 31 Brussels I Regulation. In this respect, a sufficiently relevant connecting factor to the Netherlands is required under national law. This is not the case in the present case. The fact that the copied documents are situated in the Netherlands and an application was made in the Netherlands for sending of further documents is not sufficient for this purpose. Moreover, the measures sought are not provisional, including protective, measures within the meaning of Article 31 Brussels I Regulation. While the order for judicial custody of the log books in the port of Rotterdam did serve the protection of the claimant’s rights in the main proceedings, the access to the documents currently sought by the claimant serves to grant the claimant access regarding its evidentiary position. Such access may also not be reversed and thus cannot be considered as provisional. The Rechtsbank holds that it lacks jurisdiction.