Gerechtshof Arnhem- Leeuwarden; 2018-05-22; Motana Belgium; 200171085
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:4649
Date: 2018-05-22
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82018NL0522(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
Summary - Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden – 22 May 2018 – ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:4649
Caberg is an Italian manufacturer of motorcycle helmets. Caberg concluded a distribution contract with Motana Belgium concerning the exclusive distribution of Caberg helmets in Belgium and Luxembourg. Later, Motana Belgium began to distribute the helmets also in the Netherlands via Moteo Nederland. In 2011, Caberg terminated the distribution contract.
Motana Belgium and Moteo Nederland objected against the termination. In the first instance proceedings, Caberg claimed that the rechtbank Midden-Nederland, Utrecht (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) should declare itself as not having jurisdiction over the case. The claim was rejected, and the Court of First Instance held that Caberg was responsible for failing to fulfil its obligations.
The Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) held that not the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), but the Brussels I Regulation (2) was applicable to this case. The claim brought by Motana Belgium and Moteo Nederland relates to claims for damages based on a breach of the rights and obligations arising from the distribution contract.
4.14 According to Article 5(1)(b), second indent, of the Brussels I Regulation, the jurisdiction belongs to the courts for the place where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the contract in question concerned more than only the distribution in the Netherlands: particularly, it includes the distribution (and it was an exclusive one) of Caberg helmets by Motana Belgium in Belgium and Luxembourg. According to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, when services are provided on the basis of the same contract in several Member States, as in the present case, the jurisdiction over claims arising out of that contract belongs to the courts in whose jurisdiction the place of the main provision of services is situated. The place of the main provision of services should be determined on the basis of the provisions of the contract or, in the absence of such provisions, on the actual performance of that contract (3).
The Court of Appeal believed that the place of main performance of the contract between Motana Belgium and Caberg was not in the Netherlands, therefore, the Dutch courts did not have jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal held as undisputable that the orders for the entirety of BENELUX, as well as all the communication and negotiations with Caberg, were carried out by Motana Belgium from Belgium, that the helmets for the entire BENELUX territory were delivered to the warehouse of Motana Belgium in Belgium for further distribution in Belgium (and for distribution in the Netherlands by Moteo Nederland) and that all helmets invoiced by Caberg were directly paid by Motana Belgium to Caberg. The commercial focus of the distribution contract was not in the Netherlands.
The Court of Appeal annulled the judgments of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2012, 17 July 2013 and 4 February 2015 and declared the lack of jurisdiction of the Dutch courts over this dispute.
(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.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(3) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 March 2010, Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger GmbH v Silva Trade, SA, C-19/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:137.