Gerechtshof Den Haag; 2025-05-27; Airbnb; 200.333.284
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2025:1051
Date: 2025-05-27
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82025NL0527(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2025:1051, Gerechtshof Den Haag (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), 27 May 2025, 200.333.284
Action by the claims foundation against Airbnb (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) - can the claims foundation rely on the jurisdiction clause in the defendant’s general terms and conditions? Unlawful act? Article 7(1) and (2) and Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1)
SMC (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) is a claims foundation seeking to bring collective proceedings against Airbnb (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The Court of First Instance declared that it lacked jurisdiction. The plaintiff has lodged an appeal. The Court of Appeal will determine whether the Dutch court has jurisdiction.
The defendant is established in the European Union, and the claim in the main proceedings concerns a civil or commercial matter. This means that the question of whether the Dutch courts have jurisdiction in this case must be determined in accordance with the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
The Dutch courts cannot derive jurisdiction from the general rule provided in Article 4 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (domicile of the defendant), as the defendant is established in Ireland.
As the plaintiff is not a contracting party to the agreements concluded between the tenants and the defendant, it cannot rely on Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (consumer contracts).
The plaintiff cannot rely on the jurisdiction clause agreed between the consumers and the defendant either. Under that clause, the counterparty contracting with the defendant as a consumer may bring any claims against the defendant (inter alia) before the competent court of their domicile.
The ‘principal service’ provided by the defendant, as defined in Case C-204/08 (2) of the Court of Justice of the European Union, is to bring together tenants and landlords by means of a list of accommodation compiled by the defendant and accessible via its internet platform. The defendant’s platform is operated and managed in Ireland by its employees based in that country. The agreed service is thus performed primarily in Ireland.
The plaintiff’s claims are ‘matters relating to a contract’. This excludes the possibility that they are ‘matters relating to tort’ (Brogsitter, paragraph 27). Therefore, the Dutch courts do not have international jurisdiction under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) to hear the plaintiff’s claims.
The Court of Appeal upholds the judgment of 21 June 2023 of the Court of First Instance in Hague, confirming that the Dutch courts lack jurisdiction.
(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 (recast).
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 July 2009, Peter Rehder v Air Baltic Corporation, C-204/08, ECLI:EU:C:2009:439.