Rechtbank Arnhem, uitspraak van 02/02/2009 174433/HA ZA 08-1455 Simbo V.O.F / Jongerentravel.Be N.V.
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:RBARN:2009:BH4403
Date: 2009-02-02
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968
Origin: Netherlands

82009NL0202(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff is domiciled in Arnhem (NL), the defendant in Mortsel (BE). The parties are travel agents and worked together in 2007 and 2008. The plaintiff filed claims against the defendant with the Rechtbank of Arnhem (NL) and cited the jurisdiction clause in his general travel terms and conditions. He maintained that he had presented the travel terms and conditions in a meeting with the defendant and produced evidence for that claim. The defendant contested the jurisdiction of the court, and counter-argued that the general travel terms and conditions of the plaintiff only govern the legal relationship between the plaintiff and his travel clients. He argued that the travel terms and conditions do not apply to the collaboration between the parties as travel agents.
The Rechtbank Arnhem (NL) overrules the defendant’s objection. The validity of a jurisdiction clause in general terms and conditions is not undermined when the general terms and conditions are directed at a legal relationship other than that between the parties. It is true that this would render some clauses meaningless because the actual legal relationship between the parties deviates so strongly from that which is regulated in the terms and conditions. Such a conundrum would nonetheless not arise from a jurisdiction clause. Article 23 Brussels I Regulation permits a written notice of a jurisdiction clause in general terms and conditions to suffice when those conditions are disclosed. The Rechtbank will view the evidence. The plaintiff may present evidence that he provided the general terms and conditions.