Judgment
COURT OF UTRECHT
Sector commercial and family law
Case number / role number: 297049 / KG ZA 10-1031
judgment in interlocutory proceedings of 8 December 2010
in the case of
1. ZAMAN MEHRABAN,
living in Zeist,
2. PETER HANS RUIJZENDAAL
living in IJsselstein,
plaintiffs,
attorney Mr. P.H. Ruijzendaal at Zeist,
against
RALPH GEISSEN,
with no known domicile or residence,
defendant,
did not appear.
1. The procedure
1.1. The course of the procedure is clear:
– the subpoena
– the oral procedure
– the absence granted to the defendant in the course of proceedings.
1.2. Finally, a judgment has been given.
2. The assessment
2.1. For the claim and the facts of the case, reference is made to the subpoena.
2.2. The claim does not appear to the court to be unlawful or unfounded and will be awarded as follows, with the exception of the following.
The claimed advance on the compensation for damages will be rejected, as the claim is not substantiated and as the plaintiffs have indicated at the hearing that the purpose of the advance is partly to deter the defendant from further publications. The Court in preliminary relief proceedings considered that plaintiffs have already claimed coercive measures for this purpose.
2.3. A maximum amount of the claimed coercive measures will be prohibited.
December 8, 2010
2.4. The defendant shall be ordered to pay the costs as the losing party. The costs on the part of the plaintiffs are estimated at:
– summons EUR 73.89
– fixed duty 255,00
– other costs 0.00
– lawyer’s salary 527.00
Total EUR 855.89
3. The decision
The judge in preliminary relief proceedings
3.1. prohibits the defendant from sending e-mails, publishing articles on the internet and making statements to third parties with immediate effect, in which he accuses the plaintiffs of crimes and causes damage;
3.2. orders the defendant, within one week after service of this judgment, to remove (or cause to be removed) the messages and images about and from plaintiffs already published by (or on behalf of) him on various internet forums and websites, and to give an order to that effect as well, as well as Google and other search engines to order the reference to the remove the websites in question.
3.3. orders the defendant to pay to each of the plaintiffs a penalty payment of EUR 500,– for each day or part thereof that he does not meet the above requirements under 3.1 and 3.2. The maximum amount of the fine shall be EUR 15,000 for each day or part thereof that he fails to comply with the above mentioned under 3.1 and 3.2. reached,
3.4. stipulates that, in the event of violation of the provisions of points 31 and 3.2 above, the defendant must convictions and when the maximum amount of periodic penalty payments forfeited has been reached, by The plaintiffs may be held hostage by the court for a period of one month,
3.5. orders the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, on the part of the plaintiffs to date estimated at EUR 855.89,
3.6. declares this judgment to be provisionally enforceable,
3.7. rejects the more or less claimed.
This judgment has been given by H. Phaff and has been pronounced in public on
December 8, 2010.
