Onder 3.5 Gerechtshof Den Haag 18 december 2015

As regards the test against art. 6(1) Brussels I Regulation, considering the aspects referred to just now, the claims against RDS and SPDC are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. In order for judgments to be regarded as irreconcilable there must arise, in the context of the same situation of fact and law, a divergence in the outcome of the dispute. In the present case there is ‘the same situation of fact and law’ (constituting a risk of irreconcilable judgments if dealt with separately), as the case constitutes possible liability under Nigerian law of two group companies -a parent company and a (sub)subsidiary- for (failure to prevent) the same oil spill and inadequately cleaning the same pollution. It is added that no circumvention of the rule of jurisdiction laid down in art. 6(1) has been established; there is no sufficient evidence on the basis of which it can be concluded that Milieudefensie et al. artificially fulfilled, or prolonged the fulfilment of, the applicability of this ground of jurisdiction (cf. ECJ 21 May 2015, C-352/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:335 CDC/Akzo ); there is no question of anchor claims which are certain to fail, as referred to above.

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