ECLI:NL:RBROT:2016:7181

Rechtbank Rotterdam · 19-09-2016 · zaaknummer C/10/509919 / KG ZA 16-1047

Inhoudsindicatie

Kort geding. Betekeningsperikelen. Relatie met ECLI:NL:RBROT:2016:6868. Aan wie THC (terminal handling charges) benodigd voor release van containers te betalen: containerrederij of containerterminal? Toepassing artikel 6:258 BW in de contractuele verhouding tussen containerrederij en logistieke dienstverlener verband houdend met heffing THC door containerterminal. Summary proceedings. Issues related to the service of documents for this procedure to Hanjin Shipping (Republic of Korea). The judge finds that Hanjin Shipping has a branch office in Rotterdam, therefore the writ to Hanjin Shipping could be served on that office. In a judgement of September 2nd, 2016 in summary proceedings (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2016:6868), it was decided that ECT can claim a lien on so-called Hanjin containers regarding unpaid terminal handling charges (THC). In that judgement ECT was ordered to release containers once the real terminal handlings charges (and a surcharge of € 25,00 per container) were paid, and several other conditions were met, including a release by Hanjin Shipping. A few days later ECT published a so-called Hanjin procedure for the release of Hanjin containers. According to this procedure containers will be released as soon as Hanjin Shipping has issued a release for the containers and an amount of € 500 (for a dry van container) or € 600 (for specials) as well as a deposit per container have been paid to ECT. In this case the claimant states that Hanjin Shipping and/or Hanjin GmbH/Nederland refuses to provide ECT with said release as long as the claimant doesn’t pay the terminal handlings charges to Hanjin Shipping. The result is that the claimant has to pay double the amount of THC (which is included in the amounts ECT is demanding), because Hanjin Shipping doesn’t pay THC to ECT, for which situation claimant is seeking relief. The judge finds that although under the contract with claimant Hanjin Shipping can (probably) claim payment of THC, under the current circumstances it cannot. The judge has taken into account that Hanjin Shipping will not pay the THC it will thus (want to) collect (from claimant) to ECT, now or in the foreseeable future and that the payments ECT is demanding include the THC (directly related to the containers in question). That ECT is still charging THC to Hanjin Shipping is of no consequence since it is clear that Hanjin Shipping is not paying these invoices and will not do so in the forseeable future. Since Hanjin GmbH/Nederland is instrumental in the actual release of containers it can be addressee of the judgement as well. This judgement applies to containers that are already in Rotterdam and is extended to containers that will arrive in Rotterdam.

Rechters

• P. de Bruin

Advocaten

• L.R. van Hee
• M. Wattel
• P. de Bruin
• V.R. Pool

Partijen

• [eiseres]

  eiseres · onbekend

Gemachtigden en juristen in deze zaak

In deze uitspraak zijn geen gemachtigden of juristen met naam genoemd.