Rechtbank Amsterdam, ncc civiel recht overig

Applicant requests the Court to:

The first issue for the Court to decide on is whether a cross-border application for third-party attachment, targeting a debtor’s bank accounts held at a German bank (with a German IBAN and Swift identifier), can be awarded on the basis of Dutch national law. There may be some doubt on this issue, given Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure (the EAPO Regulation). The Court, however, concludes that an attachment order can be based on Dutch national law, as Article 1(2) of the EAPO Regulation provides that an Account Preservation Order shall be available to the creditor as an alternative to preservation measures under national law, showing that such measures under national law are available notwithstanding the EAPO Regulation.

Under Article 35 of the Brussels Regulation (recast) (1215/2012), an application may be made to the courts of a Member State for such provisional, including protective, measures as may be available under the law of that Member State. And in any event, the Court today has jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the case under Article 25 (1) of the Brussels Regulation, as the applicant and the debtor designated the Amsterdam District Court in a choice-of-court clause and agreed on the appropriate NCC chamber of the Amsterdam District Court to deal with all disputes, including interim and protective measures, arising from the biomethane purchase agreements concluded on 23 April 2024.

All other NCC requirements (Article 1.3.2 NCC Rules of Procedure) have been met. Therefore, the NCC Court in Summary Proceedings is the appropriate chamber to deal with this application.

Dutch law applies to the procedure and requirements for granting leave for a pre-judgment attachment by a Dutch court. Dutch law also governs the biomethane purchase agreements pursuant to the choice of law clauses in the respective agreements (Articles 14.6 and 16.1).

The legal requirements for a pre-judgment third-party attachment (Article 718 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, DCCP) have been fulfilled. The applicant has demonstrated, on a summary enquiry, that its right as invoked in the application has merit; and the requested attachments meet the requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity. Therefore, the application will be awarded.

The time limit for initiating the main proceedings will be set at 14 days after the first attachment has been made, and the applicant will be allowed to repeat the attachment up to 3 times after the first attachment, as requested in the application.

Under Article 2(a) of the Brussels Regulation (recast) a judgment for protective measures given without the debtor being summoned to appear (as is the case with Dutch attachment proceedings, including today’s judgment), is only considered to be meaning ready for enforcement under the Brussels Regulation) where the judgment is served on the defendant prior to enforcement. Leave for attachment will therefore be granted on the condition of service prior to enforcement.

The Court will issue the certificate pursuant to Article 53 of the Brussels Regulation (recast), as requested in the application.

Leave is granted for the attachment as requested (see the attached application). Applicant is allowed to repeat the attachment up to a maximum of 3 times within a timeframe of 30 days after the first attachment.

The applicant’s claim against the debtor is estimated at € 2,663,391.80, including interest and costs.

The time limit to initiate main proceedings is set at 14 days from the date after the first attachment is made.

This judgment is enforceable notwithstanding appeal,

This judgment is given under the condition that the judgment is served on the debtor prior to enforcement.