Gerechtshof Amsterdam; 2018-06-12; 200.195.468
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2018:1938
Date: 2018-06-12
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82018NL0612(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2018:1938 Gerechtshof Amsterdam (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), 12-06-2018, 200.195.468/01
Brussels I Regulation (1)
This case regards the liability of a Dutch lawyer/law firm towards its bankrupted Belgian clients for incorrect advice, and towards the creditors of those clients for a wrongful action recognised in Belgian law as pauliaanse onrechtmatige daadvordering, hereinafter ‘the paulian unlawful action’. The Court of Appeal considered following (point 3.5 of the judgment):
The claim cited in point 3.3.(i) of this judgment, made by the Dutch trustees during the first instance proceedings, with respect to the companies Domus and Kooilust Investments against the company Banning C.S., is covered by the Belgian principle of paulian unlawful action. The jurisdiction of the Dutch court over the claim regarding Domus and Kooilust Investments was held undisputable. The Court of Appeal further assessed the jurisdiction of the Dutch court over the company Banning C.S. (domiciled in the Netherlands). The Court of Appeal considered that since the Belgian paulian unlawful action falls under the scope of the Brussels I Regulation, it must be held that the Dutch court has also jurisdiction over the claim against Banning C.S. The Court of Appeal took into consideration the fact that the Dutch trustees and the Belgian trustees had been appointed to the bankruptcies of companies belonging to the same group. Moreover, it was sufficiently proved that the settlement of these bankruptcies between the Dutch and Belgian trustees was co-operated (see the deed of transfer). The Court of Appeal referred to its previous judgment of 3 November 2009 (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2009:BL8405). The Banning C.S. accepted the jurisdiction of the Dutch court, as the trustees suggested. The second ground for appeal was dismissed.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.