Arrondissementrechtbank Haarlem, uitspraak van 28/04/2004 91127/HA ZA 03-392
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:RBHAA:2004:AO8748
Date: 2004-04-28
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82004NL0428(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff, a Dutch company, claims the payment of damages from the defendant, a person domiciled in the Netherlands and director of a Belgian company. The plaintiff claims that the defendant committed a tort by having work done in the name of the company while the defendant knew that the company would not be able to meet its contractual obligations. The defendant contests the jurisdiction of Rechtbank Haarlem (NL) and argues to this end that the Belgian courts have jurisdiction based on Article 16 Brussels Convention because the claim of the plaintiff is directly linked with the governance of the Belgian company and the court of the domicile of the company has exclusive jurisdiction in cases relating to the company.
The Rechtbank states that based on Article 66 Brussels I Regulation, the Brussels I Regulation is applicable. The Rechtbank further states that Article 22(2) Brussels I Regulation is not applicable in the first place because the Belgian company is not a party in the current legal proceedings. The Rechtbank rules that based on Article 2 Brussels I Regulation, the Dutch courts have jurisdiction as the defendant is domiciled in the Netherlands.