Since 1978, the (predecessors of) the parties in these proceedings (Duomed The Netherlands B.V. and Fujifilm Europe B.V., both domiciled in the Netherlands) were in a distribution relationship regarding endoscopy products. Since 2013, the distribution agreements existed of consecutive fixed-term contracts which expire by virtue of law. On 8 March 2023, Fujifilm informed Duomed of its intention not to enter into a new distribution agreement, which would result in the expiration per 31 March 2023. Duomed seeks in these summary proceedings an order for Fujifilm to continue the distribution relationship for another 18 months. 

The Court does not rule on the dispute between the parties as to whether the Supreme Court rulings on the termination of long-term contractual relationships apply to consecutive fixed-term contracts  which expire by virtue of law. Regardless of whether there is or is not a long-term relationship, a party to a contract must let its conduct be determined also by the legitimate interests of the other party (HR 19-10-2007, ECLI:NL:HR:2007:BA7024). The Court finds that Fujifilm did not. 

The circumstances of this case merit the existence of an obligation on the side of Fujifilm to unequivocally and timely warn Duomed, if Fujifilm would not want to conclude a new agreement after the expiration of the Distribution Agreement 2021. Fujifilm failed to do so. This breach is to be remedied in these summary proceedings by obligating Fujifilm to continue the distribution agreement for a period to be determined by the Court, which is set at six months after the judgment. Most of Duomed's claims are awarded. 

The document production claims submitted by both parties pursuant to Article 843a Dutch Code of Civil Procedure were denied due to a lack of legitimate interest in obtaining these documents.