Rechtbank Rotterdam, uitspraak van 04/02/2009 312328 / HA ZA 08-1909 CMA CGM / Extraco
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:RBROT:2009:BH2204
Date: 2009-02-04
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82009NL0204(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff operates a shipping company domiciled in Marseilles, France. The defendant, a business domiciled in Rotterdam, Netherlands, contracted the plaintiff in 2006 to transport three containers by ship from Rotterdam to St. Petersburg in Russia. The containers were not picked up by the defendant’s customers in St. Petersburg. The plaintiff filed claims with the court of competent jurisdiction for the defendant’s domicile, the Rechtbank of Rotterdam (NL), and petitioned for damages in the form of shipping, storage, and removal costs under the shipping contract. The defendant contested the jurisdiction of the court and cited a jurisdiction clause in the shipping contract of the plaintiff, according to which they had agreed to confer exclusive jurisdiction on Marseilles. The plaintiff countered that the jurisdiction clause in the agreement was standardised language placed there unilaterally by her. The clause was included for her benefit alone, and does not prevent her from filing in the general jurisdiction of the defendant.
The Rechtbank of Rotterdam (NL) notes that the jurisdiction clause satisfies the requirements of Article 23 Brussels I and was therefore validly agreed upon. Under Article 23(1) Brussels I, it is in fact possible for parties to agree upon an exclusive jurisdiction for the benefit of one party alone, but that must be explicitly stated in the agreement. Such is not the case in the present action. Exclusive jurisdiction goes therefore to Marseilles. The Rechtbank of Rotterdam (NL) declares itself not to have jurisdiction.