Since 1 January 2017, the Rotterdam District Court has exclusive competence to hear claims in maritime cases in the Netherlands. This exclusive competence does not set aside jurisdiction rules in international treaties or EU regulations, as confirmed by a recent decision of the Rotterdam Court. Only in merely national, maritime cases, parties cannot rely on a jurisdiction clause referring to any other Dutch Court than the Rotterdam Court. However, parties to transport and maritime-related contracts may prefer to opt for Rotterdam jurisdiction in any case.
Article 625 DCCP
The exclusive competence of the Rotterdam Court was introduced by an amended Article 625 in the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP). This article states that the Rotterdam Court is in first instance exclusively competent to hear any claims in respect of; a) the carriage of goods by sea or inland waters, b) the operation of vessels, c) the towing and pushing of vessels, d) salvage, e) collisions, f) damage caused on board a vessel, g) hire-purchase of a ship and h) general average.
The aim of the amended Article 625 DCCP is to concentrate all maritime cases in the Rotterdam Court, which has well-established expert knowledge of maritime issues. In this way it is hoped to enhance still further the quality and efficiency of legal proceedings and decisions relating thereto.
Under the amended Article 625 DCCP, the Dutch general rule of national territorial jurisdiction whereby the Dutch District Court in the defendant's place of business or residence is competent to hear the claim - no longer applies. For maritime cases, the sole competent Court will now be the Rotterdam Court, regardless of the defendants' place of business or residence. This raises the question, however, of whether this exclusive competence of the Rotterdam Court sets aside a jurisdiction clause in a contract on the basis of which another (Dutch) Court would be exclusively competent.
Jurisdiction clause in international cases
This question has been answered in the explanatory memorandum to the legislative proposal of the amended Article 625 DCCP. The memorandum states that the exclusive competence of the Rotterdam Court does not set aside jurisdiction rules in international treaties or EU regulations. Therefore, a jurisdiction clause that is valid pursuant to the EU Brussels I Regulation (recast) would not be affected by Article 625 DCCP. This has now been confirmed by the 31 January 2018 decision of the Rotterdam Court in a dispute involving legal proceedings initiated by a yacht owner from the Marshall Islands against a Dutch ocean carrier. The Dutch carrier invoked the jurisdiction clause in the contract of carriage, referring to the Amsterdam Court. Firstly, the Rotterdam Court decided that the Brussels I Regulation (recast) applied as it concerned an 'international case' with a foreign party involved. Secondly, the Court considered the jurisdiction clause as a valid one within the meaning of Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). Therefore, the Amsterdam Court - and not the Rotterdam Court - was competent to hear the yacht owner's claim. The new exclusive competence of the Rotterdam Court in maritime cases cannot affect this, since it involved an international case in which international and EU regulations take precedence over national procedural rules.
As a result, parties can still rely on a valid jurisdiction clause within the meaning of the EU Brussels I Regulation (recast), making any preferable Dutch District Court competent, not necessarily the Rotterdam Court.
Jurisdiction clause in national cases
However, Article 625 DCCP does set aside a jurisdiction clause in a solely national maritime case. A national case would not involve any parties from outside the Netherlands and would not relate to international matters. In such cases, parties cannot rely on a jurisdiction clause referring to a Dutch District Court other than the Rotterdam Court. If legal proceedings have been brought before any Dutch Court other than Rotterdam, that Court should declare itself incompetent and refer the case to the Rotterdam Court.
In conclusion, we can say that in international cases it is still possible to deviate from the exclusive competence of the Rotterdam Court by including and invoking a jurisdiction clause in contracts. This may be advantageous, for example, in the event that another District Court is situated closer to the party's place of business. But parties can no longer rely on such jurisdiction clauses in solely national cases. In respect of transport and maritime-related contracts, however, we recommend opting for the Rotterdam Court in any case. In addition to its proven maritime expertise, the Rotterdam Court now also has the ability to conduct legal proceedings in English.
If you have any questions about this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Barbara Wilbrink of AKD's Transport & Trade team.
Since 1 January 2017, the Rotterdam District Court has exclusive competence to hear claims in maritime cases in the Netherlands. This exclusive competence does not set aside jurisdiction rules in international treaties or EU regulations, as confirmed by a recent decision of the Rotterdam Court. Only in merely national, maritime cases, parties cannot rely on a jurisdiction clause referring to any other Dutch Court than the Rotterdam Court. However, parties to transport and maritime-related contracts may prefer to opt for Rotterdam jurisdiction in any case.
Article 625 DCCP
The exclusive competence of the Rotterdam Court was introduced by an amended Article 625 in the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP). This article states that the Rotterdam Court is in first instance exclusively competent to hear any claims in respect of; a) the carriage of goods by sea or inland waters, b) the operation of vessels, c) the towing and pushing of vessels, d) salvage, e) collisions, f) damage caused on board a vessel, g) hire-purchase of a ship and h) general average.
The aim of the amended Article 625 DCCP is to concentrate all maritime cases in the Rotterdam Court, which has well-established expert knowledge of maritime issues. In this way it is hoped to enhance still further the quality and efficiency of legal proceedings and decisions relating thereto.
Under the amended Article 625 DCCP, the Dutch general rule of national territorial jurisdiction whereby the Dutch District Court in the defendant's place of business or residence is competent to hear the claim - no longer applies. For maritime cases, the sole competent Court will now be the Rotterdam Court, regardless of the defendants' place of business or residence. This raises the question, however, of whether this exclusive competence of the Rotterdam Court sets aside a jurisdiction clause in a contract on the basis of which another (Dutch) Court would be exclusively competent.
Jurisdiction clause in international cases
This question has been answered in the explanatory memorandum to the legislative proposal of the amended Article 625 DCCP. The memorandum states that the exclusive competence of the Rotterdam Court does not set aside jurisdiction rules in international treaties or EU regulations. Therefore, a jurisdiction clause that is valid pursuant to the EU Brussels I Regulation (recast) would not be affected by Article 625 DCCP. This has now been confirmed by the 31 January 2018 decision of the Rotterdam Court in a dispute involving legal proceedings initiated by a yacht owner from the Marshall Islands against a Dutch ocean carrier. The Dutch carrier invoked the jurisdiction clause in the contract of carriage, referring to the Amsterdam Court. Firstly, the Rotterdam Court decided that the Brussels I Regulation (recast) applied as it concerned an 'international case' with a foreign party involved. Secondly, the Court considered the jurisdiction clause as a valid one within the meaning of Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). Therefore, the Amsterdam Court - and not the Rotterdam Court - was competent to hear the yacht owner's claim. The new exclusive competence of the Rotterdam Court in maritime cases cannot affect this, since it involved an international case in which international and EU regulations take precedence over national procedural rules.
As a result, parties can still rely on a valid jurisdiction clause within the meaning of the EU Brussels I Regulation (recast), making any preferable Dutch District Court competent, not necessarily the Rotterdam Court.
Jurisdiction clause in national cases
However, Article 625 DCCP does set aside a jurisdiction clause in a solely national maritime case. A national case would not involve any parties from outside the Netherlands and would not relate to international matters. In such cases, parties cannot rely on a jurisdiction clause referring to a Dutch District Court other than the Rotterdam Court. If legal proceedings have been brought before any Dutch Court other than Rotterdam, that Court should declare itself incompetent and refer the case to the Rotterdam Court.
In conclusion, we can say that in international cases it is still possible to deviate from the exclusive competence of the Rotterdam Court by including and invoking a jurisdiction clause in contracts. This may be advantageous, for example, in the event that another District Court is situated closer to the party's place of business. But parties can no longer rely on such jurisdiction clauses in solely national cases. In respect of transport and maritime-related contracts, however, we recommend opting for the Rotterdam Court in any case. In addition to its proven maritime expertise, the Rotterdam Court now also has the ability to conduct legal proceedings in English.
If you have any questions about this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Barbara Wilbrink of AKD's Transport & Trade team.