Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden; 2023-08-29; 200.314.169
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:GHARL:2023:7310
Date: 2023-08-29
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82023NL0829(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
ECLI:NL:GHARL:2023:7310 – 29 August 2023 – 200.314.169
Forum choice – Failed surgery on rider’s horse – International competitions – Consumer?
The plaintiff commissioned a Belgian veterinary clinic to operate on her horse. Shortly after the operation, the horse became lame and was found to have broken its front leg. The plaintiff held the veterinary clinic liable for this injury. The veterinary clinic pleaded a lack of jurisdiction. The Rechtbank Gelderland (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) held it lacked jurisdiction.
The question at issue is the application of Article 17(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). The critical question is whether the plaintiff was acting as a consumer. The plaintiff was approximately 19 years old at the time of the assignment. She had been involved in dressage from a very young age, training (almost) daily and taking part in international dressage competitions. Since 2014, she had been registered with the International Equestrian Federation. However, this does not automatically mean that, when she commissioned the surgery, she was acting to serve purposes that fell within the scope of a business or professional activity. This only presupposes the existence of a business or profession. At the time, the plaintiff was a student, supported by her parents and had no bank account of her own. The high costs of her dressage sport were paid for by her father. She had no income from it other than the prize money (of EUR 200 or EUR 300 as against a starting fee of EUR 400). So, no business or profession was involved at the time.
At the time of the assignment, the plaintiff was domiciled in the Netherlands. Due to the location of the veterinary clinic, it was not unforeseeable that consumers from the Netherlands would come to this clinic.
The Court of Appeal set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance and held that the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to hear the action.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast).