Onder 3.1 Gerechtshof Den Haag 18 december 2015

The District Court based its international jurisdiction regarding the claims against SPDC, with its statutory seat in Nigeria, on art. 7(1) CCP ( multiple defendants). Proceeding on the jurisdiction of the Dutch court regarding co-defendant RDS, which is not in dispute (pursuant to art. 2(1) in conjunction with art. 60(1) Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, hereinafter: the Brussels I Regulation), pursuant to that provision (art. 7 (1) CCP) this jurisdiction also exists with regard to SPDC, ‘provided the claims against the various defendants are connected to the extent that reasons of efficiency justify a joint hearing’. The District Court found that they are connected, despite SPDC’s contentions. Other contentions in this regard, also dismissed by the District Court, were, in brief, that Milieudefensie et al. allegedly abused procedural law - as the claims against RDS were obviously bound to fail and for that reason could not serve as a basis for jurisdiction as provided in art. 7(1) CCP - and that (in the analogy of the judgment of the European Court of Justice 1 December 2011, C-145/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:798 Painer ) the claims against the various defendants had different legal bases, while SPDC could not foresee that they would be summoned in this country.

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/de8feb9f0194be3387388a193625674a6efa5f71b1f8db026b54aca27981e24c | shasum -a 256