Gerechtshof Arnhem, arrest van 10/01/1995  # Becker / Spaan
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:GHARN:1995:1
Date: 1995-01-10
Based on: Provisional data
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968
Origin: Netherlands

81995NL0110(02)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff, domiciled in the Netherlands, is the director of a Dutch company. He owns 50% of the shares in this company, while the remaining 50% is owned by the second defendant, who is domiciled in Germany. An agency agreement was concluded between the Dutch company and first defendant, the spouse of the second defendant. The plaintiff and the second defendant agreed that the shareholders and their spouses would refrain from competing activities. The first defendant subsequently terminated the agency agreement and started a company with the second defendant, conducting competing activities. The plaintiff sought in summary proceedings before the President of the Rechtbank of Arnhem (NL) the prohibition of all these competing activities. The defendants contested the jurisdiction of the President. The President stated that a decision in summary proceedings is a provisional measure within the meaning of Article 24 Brussels Convention. Jurisdiction in such proceedings must be established according to internal Dutch law, and the case must have sufficient connection with the Netherlands. The President, holding that this was the case, accepted jurisdiction but rejected the claims. The plaintiff appealed, restricting his claim to the prohibition of competing activities in the Netherlands.
The Hof Arnhem (NL) accepts jurisdiction because the Netherlands is the place where the (restricted) measures are to take effect. The Hof rejects the statement of the defendants that the decision on the appeal does not fall within the scope of Article 24. A decision on an appeal is also a decision in summary proceedings. The Hof accepts jurisdiction and grants most of the claims.