Machine Translated by Google

District Court of Northern Netherlands

Session of February 21, 2024
Case/dock number C/17/190788 / HA ZA 2023-172

Incidental conclusion regarding

exception of lack of jurisdiction

William Henry Gates III

living in Medina (United States of
America),

plaintiff in the incident, defendant sub 15 in

the main case,
lawyer: W. Heemskerk in The Hague,

in return for:

1. living in Sneek,
municipality of Súdwest-Fryslân,
2. , Living in
Sneek, municipality of Súdwest-Fryslân,
3. , Living in
Sneek, municipality of Súdwest-Fryslân,
4. , Living in
Doetinchem,
5. , Living in
Doetinchem,
6. , having lived in
Zaandam, municipality of Zaanstad,
7. , Living in
Leeuwarden,

defendants in the incident, plaintiffs in the

main thing,
lawyer: AGW van Kessel in

Leeuwarden.
Machine Translated by Google

2/4

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 By summons dated July 14, 2023 (“Summons”), plaintiffs (“ cs”) Mr

William Henry Gates III (“Gates”) brought before your court. Besides having Gates
cs also summoned sixteen other parties, fifteen natural persons and one
legal entity – the State of the Netherlands.

1.2 In short, couples cs that Gates and the other defendants as a group and each
himself unlawful towards cs have acted. This unlawful act
would involve Gates and the other defendants cs deliberately would
misled them and thereby induced them to have Covid-19 tested
injections that defendants knew, or at least should have known, that these
injections were not safe and effective. cs claim an explanation in the main case
judgment with that content, and a conviction of Gates and the other defendants
the damage of cs, to be determined further in the state, to be reimbursed.

1.3 In this conclusion, Gates challenges the jurisdiction of your court to rule on the

to judge cs' claims against Gates. This defense is based on Article 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(“Rv”) before all defenses.
fed.

1.4 Given the nature of this jurisdictional incident, Gates will not (and does not need to) comment on all
respond to statements in the summons. However, this does not mean that Gates has any
statement of et al. acknowledges that this is not discussed or contradicted in this conclusion.
Gates expressly reserves the right to make other (formal and principal)
to put forward defenses, if and to the extent that your court (after all) has jurisdiction
would consider.

2 JURISDICTION ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK

2.1 With regard to the claims against Gates, your court will apply its international law
must assess jurisdiction on the basis of the Dutch commune
jurisdiction (the Code of Civil Procedure). When applying
this should be based on a connection with the jurisdictional framework of Regulation No. 1215/20121
(Brussels I-bis).

3 NO JURISDICTION ON THE BASIS OF MAIN RULE 'FORUM REI'

3.1 The main rule of Dutch jurisdictional law is that a party must be summoned
before her so-called 'homeland judge', the forum rei (Article 2 DCCP). Fixed

1
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement
of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

Pels Rijcken & Droogleever Fortuijn NV

Machine Translated by Google

3/4

that Gates does not live in the Netherlands. This means that your court does not
can derive jurisdiction from the main rule of jurisdictional law.

4 NO OTHER BASIS FOR JURISDICTION PROVIDED

4.1 cs also do not state in the Summons why your court - by way of example
exception – would still have jurisdiction. cs leave the international
jurisdiction is completely undiscussed.

4.2 cs only state that one defendant, defendant sub 1: Mr Everhardus Ite Hofstra (“Hofstra”),
lives within the district of your court.2 Ten
Your court therefore has jurisdiction with regard to the claims against Hofstra (Article 99 DCCP).
According to et al. are pending the claims against the other defendants, including:
apparently also Gates, together in such a way that your court would also have jurisdiction over all
other defendants (Article 107 DCCP).3

4.3 Any facts and circumstances that would indicate such a close connection
follow, however, are continued cs not stated. Gates therefore disputes that the
claims against him and Hofstra are related in such a way that one
joint treatment is justified. Moreover, go cs beyond it
that Articles 99 and 107 DCCP only have the relative jurisdiction of your court
to arrange. International jurisdiction cannot be derived from these provisions.

4.4 In the absence of other stated grounds, Gates therefore disputes the
international jurisdiction of your court.

5 POSITION OF PLAINTIFF SUB 6

5.1 In connection with the death of claimant 6 ( ) in October 2023, this procedure was suspended on the
basis of Article 225(1)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure as of January 10, 2024,4
but exclusively between plaintiff sub 6 and defendants.

5.2 Nevertheless, Gates also has plaintiff sub 6 on the cover page of this incidental claim
mention. After all, should the (partial) procedure be initiated by the heirs of the claimant under 6
are resumed, then it can be agreed that this conclusion also applies as compared to
can be considered taken from them, which is preferable to repetition.5

2
Summons, no. 297, p. 62-63.
3
Summons, 296-297, p. 62-63.
4 See the deed of et al. of 22 November 2023, no. 1, p. 3.
5 According to JH van Dam-Lely/N. Mirzojan, in: T&C Civil Procedure, art. 225 Rv, no. 4.b., p. 626.

Pels Rijcken & Droogleever Fortuijn NV

Machine Translated by Google

4/4

6 CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing , Gates concludes that your court may please
by judgment, as far as possible provisionally enforceable :

i. to declare itself unauthorized with regard to Gates to take note of the

claims of cs;

ii. to order cs to pay the costs of this incident, with the provision that statutory interest
will be due on the order for costs with effect from the fifteenth day after the date of the
judgment to be rendered in this case ;

iii. with condemnation of

M
cs in the additional costs, in accordance with the liquidation rate

estimated at EUR 173 or , in the case of service,¡

Lawyera

treated by W. Heemskerk and PFB Mulder

correspondence PO Box 11756, 2502 AT The Hague
telephone +31 70 515 3847
e-mail wi I lem. heemskerk@pelsrijcken. n I
case no 11020837

Pels Rijken & Droogleever Fortuijn NV