PIL instrument(s)
European Enforcement Order (EEO)
Case number and/or case name
105.004.666-01
ECLI
ECLI:NL:GHSGR:2009:BH7002
Publication in law review
AR-Updates.nl 2009-0198 RAR 2009, 74
Link to original version
Details of the court
Netherlands, Second Instance
Articles referred to by the court
European Enforcement Order (EEO)
Article 1
Date of the judgement
24 February 2009
Appeal history
None

105.004.666/01, The Hague Court (sub-disctrict judge)
CJEU's case law cited by the court
None
Summary
Amongst other things, appellant requested the payment of overdue wages. Respondent 2 argued that he was wrongly ordered by the sub-district court judge to pay amounts of money since he never concluded an employment contract with the appellant. The complaint is successful. ARC Morgan is not a legal person. The employment contract concluded with appellant was signed by respondent 1, not by respondent 2. The fact that respondent 2 was present at the signing of the employment contract did not automatically mean that he was a party to that contract. Facts or circumstances relating to that meeting that could otherwise make it in this case have not been stated or revealed. The appellant is still requesting the issuance of a European enforcement order regarding the judgment to be delivered. If and insofar as he would have an interest in that with regard to respondent 1, the following applies. In accordance with art. 2 paragraph 4 of the Law of 28 September 2005, Stb. 485, implementing Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 establishing a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, a request for the authentication of a decision given by a Dutch court to be made in the procedural document or in the course of the proceedings. In this case, the request was made by a statement of objections. The request is missing in the memorandum of 6 February 2006. In the light of the fact that respondent 1 did not appear, this means that respondent 1 is not aware that such a request has been made. This stands in the way of the allocation of this claim. The option in art. 2(1) of that law must therefore be followed in this case.The court orders the respondent 1 to pay the claimant against proof of discharge: a. € 3,103.50 gross wage, b. € 347.59 gross 8% holiday pay, c. € 413.80 gross for two vacation days, d. 50% increase over the amounts under a to c, e. € 4,338.78 in expenses incurred, f. the statutory interest on the amounts under a, b and c from 20 November 2004 until the date of payment; g. € 81.60 health insurance premium contribution, h. € 700 in extrajudicial collection costs.

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