Onder 3.3 Gerechtshof Den Haag 18 december 2015

In other respects, too, SPDC’s challenge to the connection between the claims assumed by the District Court and the efficiency of a joint hearing are unfounded. This is explained in more detail below. First of all the Court of Appeal will briefly dwell on the meaning of art. 7(1) CCP as a ground of jurisdiction if there is more than one defendant. According to the legislative history this ground of jurisdiction is prompted by reasons of efficiency and procedural economy. In order to prevent that this jurisdiction (to be derived from the fact that there is more than one defendant) is exorbitant if the various claims are not connected, the Dutch legislator has incorporated European Court of Justice (‘ECJ’) case law about art. 6(1) of the Brussels Convention (codified in art. 6(1) of the Brussels I Regulation) in art. 7(1) CCP (ECJ 27 September 1988, C-189/87, ECLI:EU:C:1988:459 Kalfelis/Bank Schröder ), ‘so that there is no deviation from art. 6 point 1 Brussels Convention’. With reference to Supreme Court (‘HR’) 27 October 1978, NJ 1980, 102 and HR 16 May 1986, NJ 1987, 456 it is added that the connection referred to here is considered to be present if ‘reasons of efficiency justify a joint hearing’ ( Parliamentary Papers II 1999/2000 26855 no. 3, p. 37). As the Dutch legislator meant to be in keeping with art. 6(1) Brussels I Regulation (now art. 8(1) EC Regulation no. 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters) the present question of jurisdiction shall be assessed by testing it against this regulation as well. Other European Court of Justice case law with regard to this alternative ground of jurisdiction is also relevant. Below, the court will first address whether a joint hearing is efficient within the meaning of art. 7(1) CCP.

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