Court declares lack of jurisdiction in VvE debt collection case

The Code of Civil Procedure (Rv) states in which court a subpoena must be filed. Which court has jurisdiction varies by type of case. The main rule is that the court of the defendant's domicile has jurisdiction. There are several exceptions to this. A few examples. For example, if an employee sues his employer, the employer may be sued before the court of the place where the work was performed. And in consumer law, a company may be sued before the court of the consumer's place of residence. In cases involving real estate, for example an Owners' Association (VvE), often the court of the place where the building stands has jurisdiction to hear the dispute. This is also the case in rental issues the case. The VvE that received a ruling on this yesterday from the Rotterdam District Court, however, received the lid on its nose. It had handled this rule of jurisdiction a bit too easily. Lawyer real estate and procedural law Robert van Ewijk explains what happened.

Property dispute: court where the building is located competent

Article 103 Rv contains a rule of jurisdiction for disputes concerning an immovable property. It provides that the court of the place where the immovable property is located has jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The VvE in the matter before the District Court of The Hague, in which a ruling was issued yesterday (not published), had sued one of its members. At issue in that case was arrears in the payment of the monthly advance contributions. A collection case thus. The VvE in question reasoned (presumably) as follows. The VvE manages the building. That is an immovable property. Therefore, the court of the VvE's domicile may take cognizance of the dispute, apparently according to The VvE. After all, the member's monthly contribution comes into the CoE's coffers and is used, among other things, for the maintenance of the building.

Judge at defendant's domicile having jurisdiction in VvE debt collection case

However, the court did not go along with this. VvE debt collection is not about a claim related to the building. It concerns a claim of commitment law nature. Moreover, the idea behind the jurisdictional scheme of Section 103 Rv is that the court can, if necessary, visit the premises in dispute. This is not necessary in a collection case.

Court declares lack of jurisdiction

The court therefore declares itself incompetent. For the VvE, this does not mean it is immediately ‘game over. The District Court of The Hague referred the case to the court of the defendant's domicile. After all, that court does have jurisdiction to hear the collection case. The judgment in this case is therefore not yet a judgment on the merits. However, the defendant buys time and has a ’home game’. This too will have no substantive advantage, but possibly only a cost advantage.

Lawyer litigation in debt collection cases

The trial lawyer of Lexys Lawyers has years of experience advising and litigating on which court has jurisdiction. Do you have questions about where your debt collection case should be brought or are you a defendant in litigation? If so, please contact on.