EUPillar LG Krefeld, 10.9.2012

Summary

The plaintiff’s action for payment had to be examined in terms of its compatibility with the declaratory judgment by the Dutch court (Rechtbank Haarlem). The defendant had obtained a declaratory judgment saying that he wasn’t obliged to pay the whole amount once claimed by the plaintiff. The court made a preliminary request where he firstly asked whether Art. 71 Brussels I had to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes an international convention from being interpreted in such a way that it undermines the objectives and principles which underlie that regulation. The second question was whether Art. 71 Brussels I had to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes an interpretation of Art. 31(2) of the CMR according to which an action for a negative declaratory judgment in a Member State does not have the same cause of action as an action for indemnity brought in respect of the same damage and against the same parties or the successors to their rights in another Member State. The request has been answered by the CJEU in 2012 (NIPPONKOA Insurance, C-452/12). The CJEU answered (see judgment [paragraph 50]): 1. Art. 71 Brussels I must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes an international convention from being interpreted in a manner which fails to ensure, under conditions at least as favourable as those provided for by that regulation, that the underlying objectives and principles of that regulation are observed. 2. Art. 71 Brussels I must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes an interpretation of Art. 31(2) of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, signed in Geneva on 19 May 1956, as amended by the Protocol signed in Geneva on 5 July 1978, according to which an action for a negative declaration or a negative declaratory judgment in one Member State does not have the same cause of action as an action for indemnity between the same parties in another Member State.