PIL instrument(s)
European Enforcement Order (EEO)
Case number and/or case name
Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 200.218.280/01
Publication in law review
Prg. 2018/294
Link to original version
Details of the court
Netherlands, Second Instance
Articles referred to by the court
European Enforcement Order (EEO)
Article 25
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 3
Date of the judgement
09 October 2018
Appeal history

C/13/604143/HA ZA 16-269, Amsterdam Court
CJEU's case law cited by the court
[X] has carried out work for the renovation of the Heiligenborn monastery in Bous in Germany. [appellant] was also involved in this project. The appellant received an invoice dated from [X] on 7 October 2011, in which [X] charged € 357,000 including VAT to appellant for "Planungsarbeiten Projekt Kloster Heiligenborn of 2008 bis Heute". The appellant draw on 7 October 2011 by notarial deed. The notary provided the notarial deed on 8 December 2011 with a European Enforcement Order certification as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 805/2004. The appellant asked notary on 20 May 2014 to revoke the authentication of the notarial deed. The notary rejected the request. By order of the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal of 1 October 2015, it was determined that the estate of the appellant's mother will be settled in the interest of [X] under Article 4: 205 of the Dutch Civil Code. The Court of Appeal appointed a liquidator. The liquidator indicated that [X] 's claim against appellant of € 357,000 was not yet recognized. The respondent at first instance claimed that the notarial deed and the claim referred to therein are valid and the appellant should be ordered to pay the claim referred to in that deed. The court rejected the claims of respondent because of the lack of procedural interest. The respondent already has a title in respect of her claim, the execution of which cannot be refused in the Netherlands. The person who uses the appeal has to have sufficient interest. This follows from Art. 3:303 Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek, BW). In the absence of sufficient interest, a declaration of inadmissibility is issued. In the Court's opinion, the appellant has insufficient interest in his appeal because the court has already decided in the sentence desired by the appellant. The appellant does not appeal for an amendment to the operative part of the judgment under appeal. This leads to the appellant being declared inadmissible for absence of interest.

This website was written by the University of Aberdeen's Research Applications and Data Management Team
It is now maintained at the University of Antwerp by the ICT Department - Research Application's Data Management Team