Hoge Raad, uitspraak van 14/06/1991 14.273
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:HR:1991:ZC0282
Date: 1991-06-14
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968
Origin: Netherlands

81991NL0614(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff is domiciled in the Netherlands. The original defendants are domiciled in Germany and in the Netherlands. The plaintiff paid money to the Dutch defendant who should have forwarded it to the German defendant. After some time, the German defendant should have returned the invested money and paid a profit share. The Dutch defendant never forwarded the money to the German defendant. The latter contests the jurisdiction of the Rechtbank Almelo (NL).
The Rechtbank accepted jurisdiction, setting aside the question of whether this jurisdiction would be based on Article 5 (1), 5 (3) or 8 Brussels Convention. On appeal, the Hof Arnhem (NL) considered that jurisdiction could, at least, be based on Article 6 (1). For the Hoge Raad (NL), only Article 6 (1) is at issue. The Hoge Raad, however, holds that the objections against the decision of the Hof with regard to jurisdiction were not raised properly and, therefore, the Hoge Raad will not decide on this matter. The Advocate General stated in his opinion that it is irrelevant whether the claim against the defendant is based on contract or tort and that it is also not important which law is applicable to the claims. The only determining factor is whether the claims against several defendants are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings.