The Bottom Line
- You can sue defaulting EU customers in your home court if the core services were performed there, significantly simplifying cross-border legal action.
- Strict procedural rules are paramount when suing an absent foreign party. Failure to formally serve an amended claim via official channels—even for legitimate extra costs—can lead to its rejection by the court.
- A default judgment is attainable against a non-appearing EU defendant, provided you can prove they were properly notified according to international regulations, paving the way for enforcement of the debt.
The Details
In a recent summary judgment, the District Court of North Holland provided a clear roadmap for businesses dealing with non-paying partners elsewhere in the EU. The case involved a Dutch equestrian company that provided stabling, care, and training services for 15 horses owned by two Hungarian partnerships. When the Hungarian partners defaulted on invoices totaling over €129,000, the Dutch company initiated legal proceedings to secure payment, arguing the unpaid debt was severely impacting its cash flow.
The court quickly established its authority to hear the case, a crucial first step in any international dispute. Citing the EU’s Brussels I-bis Regulation, the judge confirmed that for service contracts, jurisdiction lies with the courts in the location where the services were performed. Since the horses were stabled and trained in the Netherlands, the Dutch court was the proper venue. Furthermore, under the Rome I Regulation, the court affirmed that Dutch law was applicable, as the Netherlands is the service provider’s home country. This provides a degree of home-field advantage and legal certainty for businesses providing services to clients across the EU.
However, the ruling also contains a critical warning about procedural diligence. The Dutch company attempted to increase its claim just before the hearing to include additional costs for attachment and horse maintenance. Because the Hungarian defendants had not appeared in court, Dutch law requires that any such change to the initial claim must be formally served on them by a bailiff’s writ (exploot). Simply emailing the amended claim was deemed insufficient. As a result, the court refused to consider the increased amount and only ruled on the claims as stated in the original summons. While the company secured a victory for the initial debt, this oversight serves as a stark reminder that when dealing with an absent international party, cutting procedural corners can be a costly mistake.
Source
Rechtbank Noord-Holland
