Gerechtshof ‘s-Hertogenbosch; 2018-07-17; 200.231.310
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2018:3116
Date: 2018-07-17
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82018NL0717(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2018:3116 Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), 17-07-2018, 200.231.310,01
Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), Directive 97/71/EC (2), interlocutory proceedings
This case regards a work accident in which an employee (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) inhaled a toxic substance (calcine) during cleaning work in an enclosed industrial space. The employer (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) was domiciled in Belgium. The plaintiff was of Belgian nationality and was domiciled in Belgium. The work accident took place in the Netherlands where the plaintiff worked for a Dutch company on behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff claimed compensation from the Dutch courts. The defendant objected, alleging that the Dutch courts had no jurisdiction over this claim. The Court of First Instance assessed the claim in accordance with Article 21 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). Based on the timesheet provided, the court, in the interlocutory proceedings, considered that the last place where the plaintiff habitually carried out his work was in the Netherlands. The grounds of appeal No 7 appealed this conclusion. However, the appeal cannot lead to setting the case aside, because, based on the introductory sentence of Article 6 and Article 6(c) of the Rv (3), the Dutch court shall have jurisdiction even if the last place where the plaintiff habitually carried out his work was not in the Netherlands. These provisions were incorporated into the Rv by the Waga (4) - national act implementing Directive 97/71/EC. This shall be regarded as an application of the provisions governing jurisdiction in specific matters as foreseen in Article 67 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). Therefore, the grounds of appeal No 7 were held unfounded. The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision.
(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) Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services.
(3) Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering (Code of Civil Procedure).
(4) Wet arbeidsvoorwaarden grensoverschrijdende arbeid (Waga) (Cross-Border Work Act).