ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:8836, Rechtbank Amsterdam, 28-10-2025, C/13/773734
Rechtbank Amsterdam — Uitspraak 
Datum: 2025-10-28 00:00:00.000000
Rechtsgebied: Civiel recht

Samenvatting: Corporate law. The Dutch claimant (Batavia Biopharma BV, BBP) and the Korean defendant (CJ Cheiljedang Corporation, CJ) are the shareholders of biopharmaceutical company Batavia Biosciences BV (co-defendant, the Company), which is also domiciled in the Netherlands. In these proceedings, BBP claims that is entitled under the Shareholders’ Agreement, the Company’s Articles of Association and Dutch corporate law to effectively appoint persons of its choosing as non-executive directors at the Company. CJ disputes this claim.
        The NCC Court in Summary Proceedings first determines whether the requirements for the Court’s jurisdiction have been met (Article 1.3.4 NCC Rules of Procedure) and whether Dutch law governs the dispute. It rules in the affirmative:
        1)	The dispute focuses on the performance of a shareholders’ agreement, not on other issues such as the nullity of a board decision (Article 24(2) Brussels 1bis Regulation). Also, the relief requested (the appointment of a director) is not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal.
        2)	The internationality requirement (Article 32a Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, DCCP) is met, as CJ is domiciled outside of the Netherlands.
        3)	No issues regarding the public interest or directly affecting third parties are presented here and the ‘party autonomy rule’ (article 32a DCCP) is satisfied. The mere fact that mandatory provisions of corporate law may apply here, in one way or another, does not render this dispute out of the NCC’s scope.
        4)	The Company’s statutory seat is in the Netherlands and Dutch law therefore provides the rules on the internal organisation of the Company.
        At the hearing the parties requested the Court to confer with the Enterprise Chamber on potential independent candidates who may be willing to serve as non-executive directors at the Company. Subsequently, the parties reached an arrangement. The Court is satisfied that they understand the arrangement and are comfortable with it. The appointment of directors is an appropriate form of relief in summary proceedings. The Court appoints the two persons nominated to serve as non-executive directors at the Company.
         ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Vennootschapsrecht. Eiseres (Batavia Biopharma BV, hierna: BBP) en de Koreaanse gedaagde (CJ Cheiljedang Corporation, hierna: CJ) zijn de aandeelhouders van de onderneming Batavia Biosciences BV (medegedaagde in deze procedure en werkzaam in de biofarmaceutische industrie, hierna: de Onderneming). BBP stelt in deze procedure dat zij op basis van de aandeelhoudersovereenkomst, de statuten en Nederlands vennootschapsrecht het recht heeft om een niet-uitvoerend bestuurder te benoemen. CJ bestrijdt dit.
        De voorzieningenrechter van de NCC beoordeelt eerst of aan de bevoegdheidsvereisten is voldaan (artikel 1.3.4 van het NCC procesreglement) en of Nederlands recht op het geschil van toepassing is. Volgens de voorzieningenrechter is dat het geval:
        1)	het geschil ziet op de nakoming van een aandeelhoudersovereenkomst, niet op andere kwesties zoals de nietigheid van een bestuursbesluit (artikel 24 lid 2 Brussel 1bis verordening). Ook behoort de gevraagde maatregel (benoeming van een bestuurder) niet tot de exclusieve bevoegdheid van de Ondernemingskamer.
        2)	aan de eis van internationaal karakter (art. 32a Rv) is voldaan: CJ is gevestigd buiten Nederland.
        3)	het gaat hier niet om kwesties die raken aan het algemeen belang of die direct belangen van derden raken, zodat aan het vereiste van “ter vrije bepaling van partijen” (art. 32a Rv) is voldaan. Het enkele feit dat dwingend vennootschapsrecht mogelijk van toepassing is, betekent niet dat dit geschil valt buiten de bevoegdheid van de NCC.
        4)	de statutaire zetel van de Onderneming bevindt zich in Nederland en dus is Nederlands recht van toepassing op de interne organisatie van de Onderneming.
        Tijdens de zitting verzochten partijen de voorzieningenrechter om te overleggen met de Ondernemingskamer over potentiële kandidaten voor de positie van niet-uitvoerend bestuurder van de Onderneming. Vervolgens hebben partijen een schikking getroffen die zij begrijpen en waarmee zij kunnen instemmen. De benoeming van een bestuurder is een maatregel die door een voorzieningenrechter kan worden getroffen. De voorzieningenrechter benoemt vervolgens de twee voorgedragen personen als niet-uitvoerend bestuurder van de Onderneming.

judgment
    AMSTERDAM DISTRICT COURT
    
    
      Netherlands Commercial Court 
      NCC Court in Summary Proceedings
    
    
    
      Case number: C/13/773734
    
    
    
      
        Judgment
      
    
    
    28 October 2025
    
    
      
        Claimant: 
      
        BATAVIA BIOPHARMA B.V.,	
      Alphen aan den Rijn (the Netherlands),
      represented by R.Q. Potter, M.G. Dudink and C.R.B. Jonker, lawyers,
    
    
    
      
        Defendant:
      
        BATAVIA BIOSCIENCES B.V., 
      Leiden (the Netherlands),
      represented by I. Koudstaal and T.A.A.M. van Kemenade, lawyers,
    
    
    
      
        Defendant:
      
        CJ CHEILJEDANG CORPORATION
      
      Seoul (Republic of Korea),
      represented by A.W.P. Marsman, lawyer
    
    
    
      The parties are referred to as BBP, the Company and CJ. 
      The term ‘lawyer’ has the meaning as defined in Article 3.1.1 NCC Rules of Civil Procedure (NCCR).
    
    
  
  
    
      1Procedural history
    
      1.1.
      On 8 August 2025, the Court granted BBP permission to serve a summons with notice to appear at a CSP hearing on 30 September 2025. The writ of summons was subsequently served on 15 August 2025.
      
    
    
      1.2.
      On 26 September 2025, CJ submitted its statement of defence. The Company submitted a letter, waiving its right to submit a statement of defence. 
      
    
    
      1.3.
      The hearing was held on 30 September 2025. The parties submitted speaking notes in advance, and at the hearing they presented their arguments to the Court and discussed various issues. During the hearing the parties also explored avenues to settle the case. They requested the Court to confer with the Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on potential independent candidates who may be willing to serve as non-executive directors at the Company.
      
    
    
      1.4.
      On 10 October 2025, the Court presented a list of three candidates to the parties.
    
    
      1.5.
      On 21 October 2025, BBP notified the Court that it had reached an agreement with CJ on two of the suggested candidates and requested the Court to appoint them as Founders Directors and therefore as non-executive directors at the Company.
      
    
    
      1.6.
      On 24 October 2025, in response to the Court’s directions dated 23 October 2025:
      
        
          BBP confirmed that under the agreement it withdrew all claims previously submitted and entered an amended claim for the Court to issue a judgment (a) making the appointment as per the message dated 21 October 2025, (b) declaring the judgment enforceable notwithstanding appeal and (c) ordering each party to bear its own costs,
        
        
          CJ confirmed the agreement and supported the request for judgment as delineated above, in accordance with the amended claim,
        
        
          the Company confirmed that it does not oppose the settlement agreement and the requested appointment by the Court.
        
      
      
    
  
  
    
      2The dispute
    BBP and CJ are the shareholders of the Company. The core issue is whether BBP is entitled under the Shareholders’ Agreement (signed by the parties on 9 December 2021 (the SHA)), the Company’s Articles of Association and Dutch corporate law to effectively appoint persons of its choosing as non-executive directors at the Company.
    
  
  
    
      3BBP’s amended claims and the defendants’ position
    
      3.1.
      In its amended claim, BBP seeks a judgment – enforceable notwithstanding appeal – for the appointment of [director 1] and [director 2] as Founders Directors and – as a result – as non-executive directors at the Company. Each party is to bear its own costs, in the amended claim.
      
    
    
      3.2.
      CJ supports the amended claim and the Company does not oppose it.
      
    
  
  
    
      4Discussion
    
      4.1.
      Before turning to the matter at hand, the Court must first, on its own initiative, determine whether the requirements for the Court’s jurisdiction and NCC authority have been met (Article 1.3.4 NCC Rules of Procedure) and whether Dutch law governs the dispute.
      
      
        
          Jurisdiction and NCC authority
        
      
      
    
    
      4.2.
      The requirements are dealt with in this paragraph: (a) jurisdiction; (b) internationality; and (c) NCC authority and the party autonomy rule.
      
      ( a) Jurisdiction. The Court is satisfied that the Amsterdam District Court has jurisdiction to deal with this case pursuant to Article 25 (and 26) of the Brussels 1bis Regulation, as the parties agreed that the Amsterdam District Court has jurisdiction for disputes resulting from the SHA (Clause 18.12 of the SHA). The exclusive jurisdiction rule in Article 24(2) Brussels 1bis Regulation does not apply, as the dispute focuses on the performance of a shareholders’ agreement, not on other issues such as the nullity of a board decision. Also, the relief requested (the appointment of a director) is not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Enterprise Chamber.
      
      ( b) Internationality.The internationality requirement (Article 32a Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, DCCP) is met, as CJ is domiciled outside of the Netherlands (in the Republic of Korea). 
      
      ( c) NCC authority and the party autonomy rule.In the SHA, the parties designated the NCC as the appropriate chamber to deal with all disputes arising out of or in connection with the SHA (Clause 18.12 of the SHA). The dispute here concerns performance of the SHA, which is a legal relationship within the parties’ autonomy. That generally is enough to accept NCC authority, and since BBP seeks an interim measure here, the CSP is the appropriate chamber to deal with this dispute, unless a specific rule applies.
      
        The ‘party autonomy rule’ in Article 32a DCCP is a specific rule, which the Court must consider. This rule requires that issues presented to the NCC be within the parties’ autonomy. The Court’s holding is that the party autonomy rule is limited in scope: it removes issues from NCC authority only where (a) the public interest may be impacted or (b) there are issues directly affecting third parties (which is potentially or actually inconsistent with public policy). Only in such circumstances are the parties bereft of their autonomy. Accordingly, the mere fact that mandatory provisions of corporate law may apply here, in one way or another, does not render this dispute out of the NCC’s scope. No issues regarding the public interest or directly affecting third parties are presented here and the party autonomy rule is satisfied. 
      
      
        
          Applicable law
        
      
      
    
    
      4.3.
      Turning to the issue of governing law, the Court is persuaded that Dutch law applies. The Company’s statutory seat is in the Netherlands and Dutch law therefore provides the rules on the internal organisation of the Company (Article 10:118 in connection with Article 10:119(b) of the Dutch Civil Code). Any issues regarding the shareholders’ contractual obligations are – under Clause 18.11 of the SHA – governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Netherlands.
      
      
        
          The merits of the case
        
      
      
    
    
      4.4.
      The Court is satisfied that BBP and CJ have reached an arrangement that they understand and are comfortable with, along the lines of the amended claim. The Company does not oppose the amended claim. The Court is persuaded that the appointment of directors is an appropriate form of relief in summary proceedings here. On this basis, it is obvious that relief in summary proceedings, along the lines of the amended claim, is appropriate and that the requirements for an order in summary proceedings have been met. The amended claim is allowed. Each party must bear its own costs.
      
    
  
  
    
      5Order
    
    
      THE COURT
    
    
    
      5.1.
      appoints [director 1] and [director 2] as Founders Directors and as non-executive directors at the Company,
      
    
    
      5.2.
      declares that this judgment is enforceable notwithstanding appeal,
      
    
    
      5.3.
      orders that each party must bear its own costs.
      
      
        Done by L.S. Frakes, Judge, assisted by W.A. Visser, Clerk of the Court. 
      
      
      
        Issued in public on 28 October 2025.
      
      
      
        
          APPROVED FOR DISTRIBUTION IN eNCC 
        
      
      
      
      
    
  
  
     Court in Summary Proceedings
  
  
     Even if the opposite were held, the Dutch courts would still have jurisdiction as the Company is domiciled in the Netherlands
  
  
     See Amsterdam Court of Appeal (Enterprise Chamber) 7 March 2023, para. 5.6, publication number ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2023:583
  
  
     The specific text expressing this rule in Article 32a DCCP is: “as a result of a specific legal relationship which is within the autonomy of the parties to agree”; in Dutch: “naar aanleiding van een bepaalde rechtsbetrekking die ter vrije bepaling van partijen staat”. 
  
  
    
      Mr. C. Assers Handleiding tot de beoefening van het Nederlands Burgerlijk Recht. Procesrecht. 3. Bewijs, Deventer: Wolters Kluwer 2023, para. 103. In English: “The legislative intent in this final passage is that the parties, in a particular case, do not have autonomy to make an agreement defining the legal effects of their actions. For example, there may be legal effects that not only impact, or may impact, the parties, but also impact, or may impact, the public interest, or directly impact, or may directly impact, third parties’ interests. In this context, the general notion of ‘public policy’ is typically used. Examples may include the protection of vulnerable persons in family law, such as minors; the public interest involved in the status of persons (marriage, divorce); or the interests of debtors and creditors as served by fiduciary administration, the appointment of a curator, and the rules concerning the debt relief scheme and insolvency.” 
    Original Dutch text: “Met dit laatste bedoelt de wet dat partijen in het gegeven geval niet onderling door middel van een afspraak de rechtsgevolgen van hun handelingen in het leven kunnen roepen. Men moet hier denken aan rechtsgevolgen die niet alleen de partijen maar ook het algemeen belang of direct belangen van derden (kunnen) raken. In dat verband pleegt het containerbegrip ‘openbare orde’ te worden gebruikt. Het betreft bijvoorbeeld de bescherming van zwakkeren in het familierecht, zoals kinderen, het algemeen belang dat gemoeid is met de staat van personen (huwelijk, echtscheiding) of de belangen van schuldenaren en schuldeisers die worden gediend door bewind, curatele en de maatregelen betreffende schuldsanering en insolventie.”