Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden; 2021-05-04; Bakker; 200.241.742
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:GHARL:2021:4401
Date: 2021-05-04
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82021NL0504(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
ECLI:NL:GHARL:2021:4401, Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), 4 May 2021, 200.241.742/01
The Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1)
‘Bakker’ (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) is a technical installation company. ‘GBE’ (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) is an English company providing services for installation projects in the United Kingdom. The parties concluded a partnership for the construction of three new data halls in Eemshaven.
In the proceedings before the rechtbank Noord-Nederland (hereinafter ‘Court of First Instance’), the plaintiff requested that the defendant be ordered to pay, primarily, EUR 773 725.59, alternatively, an amount determined by the Court of First Instance. Before submitting the substantive defence against the plaintiff’s application, the defendant filed a procedural objection. According to this objection, the Dutch courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the case between the parties. The defendant invoked a choice of court agreement.
In the judgment of 11 April 2018, the Court of First Instance followed the defendant’s position and declared itself to have no jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal rejected the defence based on the choice of court agreement and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance to examine the substance of the application. According to the Court of Appeal, the scope of the choice of court agreement is more restrictive to the dispute than the English party would like to make it seem. The choice of court agreement also does not apply to this dispute concerning unpaid invoices.
5.14 Based on what has been considered above, the Court of Appeal is of the opinion that [the defendant] cannot invoke a choice of court agreement. Since the project work was carried out in the Netherlands, the Dutch court has jurisdiction according to Article 7(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). Because [the plaintiff] has its registered office in Meppel, the [Court of First Instance] located in Assen has jurisdiction to hear the dispute pursuant to Article 109 of the Rv. (2). Therefore, in the contested judgment of 11 April 2018, the Court of First Instance has wrongly declared itself to have no 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.
(2) Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering (Code of Civil Procedure).