Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch, arrest van 02/12/1992 MMV Leasing GmbH / F.H.T.M. Aerts
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:GHSHE:1992:2
Date: 1992-12-02
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968
Origin: Netherlands

81992NL1202(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff, a German company, brought a claim based on a guarantee agreement, before a Dutch court, against the defendant, a person domiciled in the Netherlands. The agreement contained a jurisdiction clause for the courts in Koblenz (DE). The defendant disputes the jurisdiction of the Rechtbank Roermond (NL).
The Rechtbank rejects jurisdiction, stating that the parties concluded a valid jurisdiction clause. The court chosen has exclusive jurisdiction unless the jurisdiction clause was only agreed for the sole benefit of one of the parties; this party can bring a case before any court having jurisdiction under the Brussels Convention. Only a clause expressly designating the party for whose benefit it was included in the contract can be deemed to have such effect. In the formulation of the clause in dispute, the court cannot read that it was drawn up for the sole benefit of the plaintiff. The sole fact that the court designated was that of the place of domicile of one of the parties is insufficient to justify such a conclusion. The Hof `s-Hertogenbosch (NL) reverses the decision of the Rechtbank Roermond. According to the Hof, a jurisdiction clause shall be deemed to have been introduced for the sole benefit of the plaintiff if it is certain that the parties actually wanted to favour him. This must become apparent from the writing of the condition, the whole of the agreement, or from the remaining circumstances of the case. The Hof concludes that in this case between the parties such a condition was agreed since only the plaintiff can choose to bring a case before one of the courts in Koblenz on the basis of the jurisdiction clause.