Citaat | Gerechtshof Den Haag 18 december 2015

Onder 3.8 Gerechtshof Den Haag 18 december 2015

Een alinea uit Gerechtshof Den Haag 18 december 2015, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:3586.

The conclusion following from the above should be, therefore, that the requirement of sufficient connection as referred to in art. 7(1) CCP is met, also to the extent that this provision was meant to tie in with art. 6(1) Brussels I Regulation. Art. 7(1) CCP constituted sufficient basis for conferring international jurisdiction upon Dutch courts in relation to the claims against SPDC. Furthermore, it is not correct that once adopted, international jurisdiction under art. 7(1) CCP ceases to exist if the anchor claim proves to be unfounded. The connection referred to in art. 7(1) CCP must be present when the proceedings are initiated in the first instance; international jurisdiction then existing on that ground cannot change in the course of the proceedings, except in special circumstances, which are not at issue here. Any other opinion goes against the so-called principle of perpetuatio fori (cf. Court of Appeal at Den Haag, 30 November 2010, ECLI:NL:GHSGR:2010:BP3078).

Zelf controleren

Voor dit citaat hoeft niemand Bron op zijn woord te geloven. Het document dat rechtspraak.nl publiceerde, staat op https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/de8feb9f0194be3387388a193625674a6efa5f71b1f8db026b54aca27981e24c. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt de8feb9f0194be3387388a193625674a6efa5f71b1f8db026b54aca27981e24c, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 144378 tot 145410.