Gerechtshof Den Haag; 2018-09-04; 200.209.193
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2018:2166
Date: 2018-09-04
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82018NL0904(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2018:2166 Gerechtshof Den Haag (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), 04-09-2018, 200.209.193
Brussels I Regulation (1)
The Court of First Instance ruled that due to the correlation between the claim and defendant 1, the Dutch court had jurisdiction over the claim on the basis of Article 7 of the Rv (2). Defendant 2 objected the jurisdiction of the Dutch court. The Court of Appeal stated that this case covered claims based on several legal bases. The claim against the defendant 1 was based on the fulfilment of obligations arising from an agreement on the provision of legal services. Regarding this claim (against defendant 1), the only issue was whether the plaintiff claimed excessively or not. With regards to the claim against defendant 2, the main question was whether defendant 2 had committed to ensure that defendant 1 will be able to pay the invoices. Therefore, the Court of Appeal held that the claims did not share the same legal and factual situation. In such situation, the Dutch court is not competent to hear the claims against defendant 2, as it follows from Article 7(1) of the Rv. The first ground of the appeal was therefore held justified. According to the Court of Appeal, the place of performance of the obligations underlying the claim was in the Netherlands. This covers the obligation that defendant 2 provides the Dutch company with the necessary funds for the payment of invoices (Article 6:116 BW (3)) and monitors that the invoices were effectively satisfied. Therefore, the Dutch court has jurisdiction over the claims of the plaintiff against defendant 2 insofar as these claims are based on a contractual basis. If the claims against defendant 2 were based on unlawful conduct, the Court of Appeal must investigate whether it has the jurisdiction on the basis of the opening sentences of Article 6 or Article 6(e) of the Rv. The question is whether the (alleged) harmful event occurred in the Netherlands. The harmful even in this case was the failure of defendant 2 to act in the manner intended by the plaintiff. In the absence of further evidence, the Court of Appeal concluded that the failure of defendant 2 had taken place in Monaco, where he is domiciled. Since the harmful event did not occur in the Netherlands, the Dutch court had no jurisdiction over this claim arising from the unlawful conduct, neither based on the opening sentences of Article 6 nor on Article 6(e) of the Rv.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) Wetboek van Rechtsvordering (Code of Procedure).
(3) Burgerlijk Wetboek (Civil Code).