Hoge Raad, arrest van 10/11/1995 Ampersand Ltd v/h Applied Computer Design Ltd en Ampersand Software BV / Société d'Informatique, Service, Réalisation, Organisation SISRO SA
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:HR:1995:ZC1877
Date: 1995-11-10
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968
Origin: Netherlands

81995NL1110(01)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
Between the parties, proceedings are pending before the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris (FR) in which the plaintiff, a French company, claims damages from the defendants, a Dutch company and a company with its seat on the Isle of Man.
The plaintiff claims that a computer programme of the defendants infringes the copyright the plaintiff holds to a computer programme. The defendants appealed the case, in which the plaintiff prevailed at trial, to the Cour d’appel of Paris (FR). The plaintiff effected the confiscation in the Netherlands of various assets that belonged to the defendants. The plaintiff then sought declaratory relief before the Rechtbank of Amsterdam (NL), seeking a court declaration that the expected French final judgment be enforceable on the seized assets as soon as that judgment be rendered. The defendants brought a counterclaim requesting a court declaration that their computer programme does not infringe on any rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff objected on grounds of lis alibi pendens. The Rechtbank Amsterdam (NL) decided that the claims do not share the same object. On the appeal, the Hof Amsterdam (NL) decided to the contrary and stayed the proceedings. The defendants appealed in cassation to the Hoge Raad (NL).
The Hoge Raad (NL) finds that the Hof determined, inter alia, that the object of the French proceedings was not just the copyright infringements perpetrated in France, but also those perpetrated in the Netherlands. The computer programme of the defendants in the individual countries is exactly the same. Also, the counterclaim has the same object as the French proceedings. The Hoge Raad refers in that regard to the decision of the ECJ 6 December 1994, Case C-406/92, Tatry. The Hof
of Amsterdam was correct to stay the proceedings.