On 21 May 2025, the District Court of The Hague ruled in a case brought by Stichting Environment and Fundamental Rights (the Foundation) against three companies from the Repsol Group over the 2022 oil spill off the coast of Peru (see case ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2025:8700). The Foundation, representing over 34,000 victims, claimed that Repsol Perú B.V. (Netherlands), Refinería La Pampilla S.A.A. (Peru), and Repsol S.A. (Spain) were jointly liable for the damage.
The applicants argued that Repsol Perú B.V. could serve as an “anchor defendant” under Article 8(1) Brussels I-bis and Article 7(1) Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP, or Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering), enabling the Dutch court to hear the claims against the other Repsol entities. It pointed to shareholding ties, overlapping directors, and strategic oversight as proof of a close connection. The Court rejected this. In paragraph 4.18 of its decision, it held that general corporate ties do not suffice to establish jurisdiction over foreign co-defendants. The Foundation failed to show concrete operational involvement by Repsol Perú B.V. in the Peruvian refinery or the oil spill. Therefore, the claims were not based on the same factual and legal grounds, and the Dutch court lacked jurisdiction over Repsol S.A. and La Pampilla.
The defendants argued that the Dutch court lacked jurisdiction based on the 1992 Civil Liability Convention (CLC). The court found that the CLC applies only to claims against the shipowner and does not exclude other claims under national law. However, it held that there was no sufficient connection between the claims against the Dutch entity and the foreign companies to justify jurisdiction over the latter. The court also rejected the argument that the Foundation was misusing Dutch civil procedure by avoiding the WAMCA collective action framework (Wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve actie). As a result, the court declared itself incompetent to hear the claims against the Peruvian and Spanish companies but allowed the case against Repsol Perú B.V. to proceed.
The ruling confirms that to invoke Article 8(1) Brussels I bis or Article 7(1) DCCP, claimants must demonstrate specific and direct involvement by the Dutch entity in the harmful acts, and not just corporate connections. Further information about the case, from the perspective of the applicants can be found here; the perspective of the defendants can be found here.
De Maribus 