Rechtbank Dordrecht, uitspraak van 12/12/2007 71584 / HA ZA 07-2504
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:RBDOR:2007:BC1177
Date: 2007-12-12
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82007NL1212(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The defendant, seated in Scotland, manufactured vibration dampers, which it sold to a heavy equipment dealer, A, located in the Netherlands. The plaintiff, seated in the Netherlands, bought some heavy equipment from A that used some of the vibration dampers produced by the defendant. The vibration dampers proved to be defective. Owing to strong vibrations from the use of the machinery, many employees of the plaintiff called in sick. The plaintiff brought action before the Rechtbank of Dordrecht (NL) and sought damages arising in tort or delict. The defendant disputed the jurisdiction of the Rechtbank. The defendant argued that the damages claimed by the plaintiff had already occurred in Scotland, as the vibration dampers were produced and put into commerce there. The plaintiff objected that the question does not turn on the place where the dampers were produced and sold to A, but rather on the place where the defect manifested during use by the plaintiff.
The Rechtbank of Dordrecht (NL) holds that the plaintiff has founded well its claims sounding in tort or delict within the meaning of Article 5(3) Brussels I Regulation. According to the ECJ, to the extent that the place of the events giving rise to the harmful effects and the place where the original harms were suffered differ, the injured party may choose between the two jurisdictions. This choice does not lead to the conclusion that the injured party may always file actions at the place where his assets are concentrated in cases of purely financial damage (ECJ decision Kronhofer v. Maier 10.06.2004, C-168/02). In the present case, however, the plaintiff has based claims, inter alia, on the labour shortage caused by the illnesses of its employees, damages to its reputation, and damages to its competitiveness, all of which were caused by the use in the Netherlands of the defective products. The damages therefore occurred in the Netherlands. The Rechtbank declares itself as having jurisdiction.