Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Court of Appeal of Amsterdam), 25 February 2020

At a glance

Parties

[Appellant] (resident in Iran) v. [Respondent] (names anonymised in the published judgment)

Case no.

Gerechtshof Amsterdam No. 200.259.972/01 (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2020:579); first instance: Rechtbank Amsterdam, Kantonrechter No. 5127542 CV EXPL 16-17659

Court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Court of Appeal of Amsterdam), civil and tax law division, multi-judge civil chamber

Treaty

New York Convention 1958 (invoked by the appellant); Article 224 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure

Court

R.J.M. Smit, C. Uriot, E.M. Polak

Outcome

The Court granted the motion for security for costs. The appellant had to deposit EUR 2,929 by 24 March 2020, or his appeal would be declared inadmissible.

Amount

Security for costs ordered: EUR 2,929. The decision on the costs of the motion was reserved.

The dispute

The appellant had been the claimant before the cantonal judge of the Amsterdam District Court. He appealed against judgments of 25 September 2017, 30 April 2018 and 15 January 2019. He now lived in Iran. The respondent filed an interlocutory motion under Article 224 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Rv) asking that the appellant provide security for the costs of the appeal. The appellant relied on the exception in Article 224(2)(a) Rv for treaties, citing the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The published judgment does not describe the subject matter of the underlying dispute.

Key holdings

1. Under Article 224(1) Rv, a claimant with no domicile or habitual residence in the Netherlands must provide security for costs if the other party asks for it, unless an exception in Article 224(2) applies. ¶ 2.1
2. The New York Convention does not exempt the appellant from providing security. The judgment under appeal is not an arbitral award within the meaning of the Convention, so Iran is not party to any treaty or EC regulation that excludes the obligation under Article 224(2)(a) Rv. ¶ 2.4
3. No treaty, EC regulation or statute allows a Dutch costs order to be enforced in Iran, so the exception in Article 224(2)(b) Rv does not apply either. ¶ 2.4
4. The Court accepted the respondent's calculation of EUR 2,929: three points at EUR 759 each, a court fee of EUR 324, post-judgment costs of EUR 246 and service costs of EUR 82. The appellant must deposit this sum within four weeks, by 24 March 2020, into the third-party account of the respondent's lawyer. If he does not, his appeal will be declared inadmissible. ¶ 2.5; Decision
5. The decision on the costs of the motion is reserved until the final judgment. The main case is referred to the cause list of 31 March 2020. ¶¶ 2.6–2.7; Decision

Procedural history

1. 25 September 2017, 30 April 2018, 15 January 2019The cantonal judge of the Amsterdam District Court gives judgments in case No. 5127542 CV EXPL 16-17659.
2. 9 April 2019The appellant files his appeal by writ of summons.
3. 25 February 2020The Court of Appeal orders the appellant to provide security for costs of EUR 2,929.
4. 24 March 2020Deadline for providing the security.
5. 31 March 2020Cause-list date for the respondent to state whether the security was provided. The published documents do not show what happened next.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• R.J.M. Smit Judge, Gerechtshof Amsterdam
• C. Uriot Judge, Gerechtshof Amsterdam
• E.M. Polak Judge, Gerechtshof Amsterdam

For the claimant

N.J.F. Snoek

For the respondent

van Zijll

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• security for costs
• cautio judicatum solvi
• Article 224 Rv
• New York Convention
• Iran
• non-resident claimant
• appeal
• Netherlands
• Court of Appeal of Amsterdam
• enforcement of costs order
• interlocutory motion
• arbitral award definition

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.