Rechtbank Rotterdam, uitspraak van 04/06/2008 291064/ HA ZA 07-2230 Bascitrus International Trading Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda,, Juice Trade Gmbh & Co Kg / Sparti Hellas S.A.
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:RBROT:2008:BD9249
Date: 2008-06-04
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82008NL0604(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
A, seated in Portugal, delivered orange juice concentrate to X, seated in Greece. B, seated in Germany, is a commercial agent and arranged on behalf of X for the further sale of the juice concentrate to Poland and advanced expenses. The juice concentrate was located in a refrigerated warehouse in Rotterdam (NL) during the sale and was signed over to X without a change of location. The sales contracts contained general terms and conditions of business. Those terms stated that the place of delivery is the seat of the seller so long as another place does not arise under the circumstances of the sale. A and B brought action against X before the Rechtbank of Rotterdam (NL). A demanded payment on outstanding invoices. B demanded payment of commission and expenses advanced. X disputed the jurisdiction of the Rechtbank. A cited Article 5(1) Brussels I Regulation.
The Rechtbank of Rotterdam (NL) finds that the place of delivery clause in the general terms and conditions of business also permits jurisdictions beyond that of the seat of the seller and is not exclusive within the meaning of Article 23 Brussels I Regulation. An alternative jurisdiction at the place of actual delivery is not excluded. Under Article 5(1)(b) Brussels I Regulation, the court for the place where the goods were delivered or should have been delivered has jurisdiction. Insofar as the goods have already been delivered, the place of the actual delivery is controlling for the determination of jurisdiction. The goods were actually delivered in Rotterdam. On the other hand, B's claims for commission and reimbursement of the advances are based on activities that B carried out in Germany. To that extent, the Rechtbank does not have jurisdiction under Article 5(1)(b) Brussels I Regulation. The Rechtbank declares itself lacking in jurisdiction over the claims by B, and as having jurisdiction in all other regards.