The case concerns the performance of an agreement with regards to contracting of work. The equine entrepreneur contracted an Italian architecture agency and an interior contractor, which according to the entrepreneur failed to fulfil their obligations set out in the agreements they made. This resulted in substantial damages.
Apart from claiming damages from the contracted parties the entrepreneur also decided to claim damages from the (former) directors of the interior contractor and a subcontracted Italian interior contractor.
The architecture agency, one of the directors of the interior contractor and the subcontracted interior contractor all were of the opinion that the Dutch judge wasn’t competent and that the case should be decided by the Italian judge. The entrepreneur disputed these statements.
The Court decided, in line with the statement of the entrepreneur, that based on the in the EU applicable EEX-regulation she is competent to rule on the dispute when it comes to the director of the interior contractor and subcontracted interior contractor. Therefore the litigation against these parties may be continued in the Netherlands.
The Court did declare that she was not competent where it concerns the dispute against the architecture agency. Reason for this was that in the opinion of the Court the entrepeneur and the architecture agency did agree on an applicable Court in Italy and this agreement was considered legally valid. As a consequence of this the Italian judge is the competent judge in this matter. The litigation against this party was therefore continued in Italy.
The complete decision and in particular the interesting reasoning of the Court can be found here.
The equine entrepreneur was represented by Mr. L.M. Schelstraete en Mr. P.M. Wawrzyniak and Mr. V. Zitman.