Onderzoek of aangeboden zekerheid voldoet aan art. 6:51 lid 2 BW vereist bij zekerheidstelling.

Rechtsvraag

Whether FISA, as a Colombian entity, is obligated to provide security for costs in a Dutch court under Article 224 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, considering Article 14 of the Friendship Treaty between the Netherlands and Colombia.

Regel

• Art. 224 lid 1 Rv (Requirement for non-residents to provide security for costs when initiating a claim in Dutch court)
• Art. 224 lid 2 Rv (Exemptions to the security requirement if it arises from a treaty)
• Art. 6:51 lid 2 BW (Requirements for the form of security to ensure coverage of the claim)
• Art. 14 Vriendschapsverdrag tussen Nederland en Colombia (Provisions for reciprocal freedom of trade and access to courts)

Toepassing

• Art. 224 lid 1 Rv (Requirement for non-residents to provide security for costs when initiating a claim in Dutch court) The court applied Article 224 lid 1 Rv and found that FISA, being a Colombian entity without a domicile or principal place of business in the Netherlands, was required to provide security for costs as per the request of [verweerders]. The court noted that none of the exceptions in Art. 224 lid 2 Rv applied, as Colombia is not a party to a treaty or European regulation that exempts such requirements (rov. 3.5 and 3.6).
• Art. 6:51 lid 2 BW (Requirements for the form of security to ensure coverage of the claim) The court determined that FISA must provide security in the form of an irrevocable bank guarantee by a Dutch bank. The court did not accept FISA's proposed alternative methods of providing security (rov. 6.9), reasoning that no evidence was provided that a bank guarantee could not be obtained by FISA from a Dutch bank (rov. 6.8).
• Art. 6:51 lid 2 BW (Requirements for the form of security to ensure coverage of the claim) The court was criticized for not considering FISA's alternative methods of security, which included depositing €27,000 on the third-party account of FISA's or [verweerders]' lawyer, or by paying this amount directly to [verweerders]. The court was required to assess if these alternatives met the requirements of Art. 6:51 lid 2 BW, which was not done, as the court did not return to its initial decision regarding the bank guarantee form of security (rov. 6.9).
• Art. 6:51 lid 2 BW (Requirements for the form of security to ensure coverage of the claim) The court determined that the form of security in the form of a bank guarantee by a Dutch bank met the requirements of Art. 6:51 lid 2 BW. However, the court did not evaluate whether alternative forms of security offered by FISA provided sufficient coverage as required by the rule, which was a point of contention in the appeal (rov. 6.9).
• Art. 14 Vriendschapsverdrag tussen Nederland en Colombia (Provisions for reciprocal freedom of trade and access to courts) The court found that Article 14 did not exempt FISA from the requirement to provide security for costs. While the article grants reciprocal freedom of trade and access to courts, it does not explicitly provide for equal treatment regarding the requirement to provide security. Additionally, the context and purpose of the treaty, as well as the absence of an enforcement provision for cost awards in Colombia, do not suggest an exemption from security for costs (rov. 3.1.5).

Conclusie

The Dutch Supreme Court concluded that FISA is obligated to provide security for costs under Art. 224 lid 1 Rv, as the exceptions in Art. 224 lid 2 Rv do not apply. The court also found that the lower court should have considered the alternative forms of security offered by FISA under Art. 6:51 lid 2 BW, and therefore, the decision to require a bank guarantee should be revisited. The case was referred back to the court of appeal for further proceedings.

Partijen en standpunten

• Eiser: FUERA INTERNACIONAL S.A.
• Gedaagde: [verweerder 1], Greenway Finance B.V., [verweerster 3] B.V., Fuera International B.V.

FISA vordert schadevergoeding van [verweerders].

[verweerders] vorderen dat FISA zekerheid stelt voor proceskosten vanwege het ontbreken van een executieverdrag met Colombia.

Wetsartikelen

• art. 6:6:51 lid 2 BW
• art. 224 Rv
• art. 224 lid 1 Rv
• art. 224 lid 2 Rv
• art. 616 lid 4 Rv
• art. 353 lid 2 Rv
• art. 224 lid 5 Rv
• art. 81 lid 1 RO

Tijdlijn

1. 23-01-2019 De rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant heeft een vonnis gewezen in de zaak C/02/350240 / HA ZA 18-644, waarin de vorderingen van FISA zijn afgewezen en de vordering van [verweerster 3] B.V. is toegewezen.
2. 27-11-2019 Er is een tweede vonnis gewezen door de Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant in dezelfde zaak.
3. Onbekend FISA heeft hoger beroep ingesteld tegen de vonnissen van de rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant.
4. 22-09-2020 Het gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch heeft arrest gewezen in de zaak 200.274.866/01.
5. 27-10-2020 Het gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch heeft een beschikking gegeven in een incident in dezelfde zaak.
6. 01-06-2021 Het gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch heeft een tweede arrest gewezen in dezelfde zaak.
7. Onbekend FISA heeft beroep in cassatie ingesteld tegen de arresten van het gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch van 22 september 2020 en 1 juni 2021.
8. 25-11-2022 De Hoge Raad heeft arrest gewezen, de arresten van het gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch vernietigd, en de zaak verwezen naar het gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden.