That question remains open following Case C–99/96 Mietz v. Intership Yachting Sneek BV16 a more recent decision that raises some similar issues but continues to confine its attention to interim payments. The applicant was appealing against a German order for enforcement of a Dutch judgment ordering interim payment in kort geding proceedings. The applicant argued that the underlying contract was covered by the special provisions on consumer contracts in Articles 13 et seq. of the Brussels Convention. Therefore failure to observe the rules of jurisdiction in Articles 13 et seq. was a ground for non-recognition of the Dutch judgment. The contract was for the sale of a luxury yacht, to be paid for in five instalments during its period of construction and trial. A written contract was signed in the Netherlands, but the applicant alleged for the first time in the German proceedings that the contract was negotiated at a boat show in Germany and an oral contract was made there.