THE BOTTOM LINE
- Jurisdiction Can Follow the Money: If your employee is injured at a partner’s site in another EU country, you can likely sue that partner in your company’s home country to recover financial losses like sick pay. The key factor is where the financial damage occurs, not where the physical injury happened.
- Home Country Law May Apply: A Dutch court confirmed that the applicable law for recovering such employer costs is the law of the country where the financial loss was suffered, providing more predictability for businesses operating across borders.
- Urgency Requires Proof, Not Just Claims: Seeking an advance payment in summary proceedings requires concrete evidence of financial distress. A court will dismiss claims of a “financial emergency” that are not backed by financial data, even if the underlying case is strong.
THE DETAILS
This case involved a Dutch logistics company, CTW, whose driver was injured by a forklift at the German premises of its partner, Dachser. As the employer, CTW was legally obligated under Dutch law to continue paying the driver’s salary during his recovery. CTW sued Dachser in the Netherlands to recoup these costs, requesting an immediate advance payment. The case hinged on a critical question for any international business: when an incident happens in country A, causing financial loss to a company in country B, where do you go to court?
The District Court of Limburg provided a clear answer by focusing on where the direct damage was felt. While the driver’s physical injury occurred in Germany, the court reasoned that CTW’s damage—the financial cost of the paid sick leave—was suffered in the Netherlands, at its corporate seat. Based on EU regulations (specifically Brussels I-bis and Rome II), this meant the Dutch court had jurisdiction and that Dutch law was applicable to the claim. This is a significant clarification for businesses, establishing that the “place of damage” for an employer’s financial loss is its home base, allowing for litigation on familiar legal ground.
Despite this important jurisdictional win, CTW’s request for an advance payment was ultimately denied. In summary proceedings, a claimant seeking a monetary advance must prove an “urgent interest,” typically by demonstrating severe financial hardship. CTW claimed it was facing liquidity problems and had to postpone investments but failed to provide any financial statements or other evidence to substantiate this. The court dismissed the claim, underscoring a vital business lesson: while the law may be on your side regarding liability, procedural requirements are strict. Claims of financial emergency must be supported by hard evidence, not just assertions.
SOURCE
Source: Rechtbank Limburg
