Rechtbank Dordrecht, uitspraak van 18/06/2008 72529/ HA ZA 08-2027
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:RBDOR:2008:BD4896
Date: 2008-06-18
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82008NL0618(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff was a business owner domiciled in the Netherlands.
The defendant was a business owner domiciled in Belgium. The plaintiff delivered merchandise to the defendant in October 2006 and invoiced him. The defendant did not pay the invoice. The plaintiff filed a demand for payment with the Rechtbank of Dordrecht (NL). The defendant contested the jurisdiction of the court. The plaintiff cited a jurisdiction clause in his general terms and conditions. The invoice contained a notice regarding the general terms and conditions, which the plaintiff had placed on record before the Dutch Chamber of Commerce and would deliver free of charge on request.
Article 23(1)(a) Brussels I requires that parties come to an express and clear agreement in order for a jurisdiction clause to enter into effect. The Rechtbank of Dordrecht observes that the parties executed an oral contract that was not confirmed in writing. The simple, unilateral sending of general terms and conditions does not suffice to show a valid agreement to confer jurisdiction. Nor may the plaintiff rely on the fact that the defendant did not oppose the inclusion of the general terms and conditions, and that the plaintiff therefore believed them to be applicable pursuant to Article 3:35 Burgerlijk Wetboek (the Dutch Civil Code). This national rule on the formation of contracts is supplanted by the relevant portions of the Brussels I Regulation. Nor did the parties maintain a standing commercial relationship with each other. The jurisdiction of the place of performance was not given. The Rechtbank of Dordrecht declares itself not to have jurisdiction.