Hoge Raad; 2016-02-26; Reaal schadeverzekeringen; SAME DEUTZ-FAHR DEUTSCHLAND; 14/04451
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:HR:2016:346
Date: 2016-02-26
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82016NL0226(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
Westo purchased a tractor produced by Same Deutz, a company established in Germany. Westo has an agreement for Liability Insurance with Reaal, a Dutch financial institution. The tractor was used for transporting materials from Westo’s Dutch branch to a location three kilometres away in Germany. While moving through a railway crossing in the Netherlands, the engine of the tractor broke down. Then a collision occurred between the broken down tractor and an oncoming train. The train was partially derailed and overturned. The Nederlandse Spoorwegen (Dutch Railways) and ProRail (the organisation responsible for the rail network in the Netherlands) claimed a compensation from Reaal. Reaal subsequently sued Same Deutz for product liability in a Dutch court. Same Deutz raised a plea to the jurisdiction. According to Same Deutz, the German court has jurisdiction over the dispute, not the Dutch. The Rechtbank (the Court of First Instance in the Netherlands) rejected the plea. Conversely, the Hof (the Court of Appeal) ruled that the Dutch courts do not have jurisdiction in this case and reversed the decision of the Rechtbank. The Hoge Raad (the Supreme Court) adjudged that the Dutch court is competent in this case and reversed the decision of the Hof (Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden). According to the Hoge Raad, the plaintiff can choose to file an action either in the court within the jurisdiction of the place where the accident occurred (Netherlands), or the court within the jurisdiction where the tractor was manufactured (Germany).
4.3 The Hof disregarded the possibility that the place where the harmful event originated (the “Handlungsort”), in this case, Germany (where the tractor was produced by Same Deutz), does not prevail over the place where the damage to Nederlandse Spoorwegen and ProRail occurred (the “Erfolgsort”), in Coevorden (the place of the collision between the train and the tractor), and that Reaal has the right to choose to sue Same Deutz within the jurisdiction where the collision occurred. This right is in compliance with Article 5 (preamble and paragraph 3) of the Brussels Regulation, in matters relating to both, tort and product liability. Therefore, the Hof decided incorrectly that the Rechtbank Assen (now the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland) did not have jurisdiction to hear the action filed by Reaal.