Court of Justice of the 
European Communities
L-2925 Luxembourg
INFORMATION PURSUANT TO 
PROTOCOL 2 ANNEXED TO THE 
LUGANO CONVENTION
Nº 2003/43

Library, Research
and Documentation
  

Recent case-law relating to the Brussels 
and Lugano Conventions on Jurisdiction 
and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil 
and Commercial matters
  

Brussels 
Convention

Art. 1, second para.
Art. 24
Court  :  Gerechtshof 's-Gravenhage
Date  :  26.03.2002
Parties  :  Hans Ulrich Petermann Beratungs- und Vertriebs GmbH / Frans Maas Rotterdam BV e.a.
Publications  :  Schip en schade 2002 nº 133
Nederlands internationaal privaatrecht 2003 nº 41
 
Keywords  : 
 
E-01.02.04 Brussels Convention - Scope ratione materiae - Matters excluded - Arbitration - Arbitration clause submitting all disputes relating to the contract to the exclusive jurisdiction of three arbitrators - Scope - Interim application for the lodging of security - Lack of jurisdiction of the national court even where enforcement of the arbitrators’ decision is impossible in another Contracting State
 
E-24 Brussels Convention - Particular jurisdiction - Provisional and protective measures - Application for the lodging of security - Requirement of real connection between the subject of the security and the jurisdiction of the court seised on the basis of territorial criteria - Lack of jurisdiction of Netherlands court because there were no assets in the Netherlands which could serve as security
 
Summary  :  An arbitration clause stipulating that all disputes are to be decided by three arbitrators also deprives the court ordinarily having jurisdiction from hearing an interim application for security. The fact that, since the arbitration clause was not expressed in writing, an order enforcing the arbitrators’ decision in another Member State was refused has no effect on the validity of the clause, which retains its legal force and cannot be declared inapplicable by the court.
In order to grant a provisional or protective measure within the meaning of Article 24 of the Convention, there must be a real connection between the subject of the security and the jurisdiction of the court seised on the basis of territorial criteria. In this case, in the absence of assets in the Netherlands which could serve as security, that condition is not satisfied. It follows that in such a case the Netherlands court does not have jurisdiction to grant such a measure.
 
Annex  :  Judgment in original language (Dutch)

BACK HOME