Introduction

It is well-known that legal conflict resolution and court litigation is organized on a territorial basis, i.e. every state had its own courts ruling upon disputes based on local legislation where they have jurisdiction. Private International law, also known as “conflict of laws” in more common law states constitutes the body of law resolving questions resulting from foreign elements in legal relationships e.g. contractual disputes amid parties located in different jurisdictions, marital status of different nationalities partners etc. Private International Law seeks to determine which nation’s courts have jurisdiction over disputes with a foreign element and which conditions must be met for the recognition of decisions made by foreign courts. In essence private international law, unlike public international law, is not a set of rights and obligations amid States but rather a municipal law regulating conflict between parties. However, it has existed for millennia and it can be traced back to Ancient Greece. Today in a world where distances have been diminished private international law has developed significantly.[1]

 

The process of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is a key issue of whether the judgments will have legal effect in other States and whether they will be enforceable on the territory of other states, given that if this is impossible, the court decisions lose their legal function. In essence the process of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments seems as rather significant[2].

 

In Europe the six founding states (Italy, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg) of what is now known as EU, recognised the high number of cross-border legal disputes, on September 27th 1968 and agreed the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters that entered into force on 1 February 1973, thus making court judgments freely enforceable among Member States[3]. The Convention provided criteria for determining the competent judge for procedures in the Member States and following the admission of new Member States all of them adopted the Convention[4]. The Convention was only the beginning, then the Lugano Convention followed and the Brussels I Regulation. All of those are collectively known as “the Brussels Regime”. The Regime included detailed rules assigning jurisdiction for the dispute to be heard and governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements.

 

  1. The Brussels I Regulation

 

The Brussels I Regulation (hereinafter Regulation) officially the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 that entered into force on 1 March 2002 (becoming directly applicable in all Member States by virtue of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities[5]) deals with issues of jurisdiction among EU states and Denmark (that was included by virtue of a separate agreement)[6]. It applies to civil and commercial matters and is part of the EU private international law system[7]. The Regulation supersedes the 1968 Brussels Convention and they both set out a system for the allocation of jurisdiction and for the reciprocal enforcement of judgments[8]. It has been argued that the purpose of the Regulation was to bring the law contained in the Brussels Convention into the main body of EC Law[9]. It has been also argued that Member States’ liberty to act freely with regard to a number of conventions was considerably limited under Community law[10]. It has been argued that the Brussels I Regulation continues and perpetuates the success story that begun with the Brussels Convention. The Regulation in general is argued as the best received and best known Act of international procedural law and its structure has provided some kind of role model[11].

 

The Regulation deals with private international law matters arising in the context of jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters containing uniform rules settling conflicts of jurisdiction and facilitating mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments, court settlements and authentic instruments within the EU. [12] These rules generally apply whenever the defendant resides within the EU. Generally speaking, a person residing in the EU should be sued in the courts of the Member State where s/he resides, however in certain circumstances a defendant may be sued in the courts of another Member State, given that pursuant article 15 of the Regulation a specific rule is set out for consumer contracts, providing protection to EU consumers by enabling them to sue in the Member State where they reside[13]. Plaintiffs may however, avail themselves of the special jurisdiction specified in Articles 5 to 7 of the Regulation and bring an action in another Member State. Unlike general jurisdiction, the grounds of special jurisdiction in principle establish both the jurisdiction of the Member State concerned and the local jurisdiction of that State’s courts, which may depart from national rules on territorial jurisdiction[14]. The Regulation is considered the matrix of civil judicial cooperation in the EU identifying the most appropriate jurisdiction for solving a cross-border dispute and ensuring the smooth recognition and enforcement of judgments issued in another Member State[15]. The policy aims of the Regulation are designed to further the development of an area of freedom, security and justice and the operation of the internal market including the establishment of a system of predictable and appropriate jurisdictional rules generally based on the location of a defendant’s domicile. The recognition and enforcement of judgments is founded upon the principle of mutual trust among the Member States[16]. In ECJ Johann Gruber v Bay Wa AG’[17] it was held that a person concluding a contract for goods intended for purposes which are in part within and in part outside his trade or profession may not rely on the special rules of jurisdiction laid down in articles 15 – 17 of the Regulation, unless the trade or professional purpose is so limited as to be negligible in the overall context of the supply.

 

The Regulation does not apply to judgments originating from non-convention countries such as the US, given that there is no bilateral treaty or multilateral international convention in force among the US and any other state on a reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments[18]. Pursuant article 1(2) the matters excluded from the Regulation’s application are: status and legal capacity of natural persons; rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship, wills and succession; bankruptcy and similar proceedings; social security and arbitration[19]. Moreover, the regulation does not apply to revenue, customs or administrative matters[20].

 

It is argued that the value of a Community instrument like the Brussels I Regulation for bringing about full and harmonious freedom of movement of persons, goods, services and capital in the European Union is inestimable and the need for it was apparent when the Treaty establishing the European Community was concluded[21]. It has also been argued that in the main it has worked well[22]. It is considered a highly successful instrument facilitating cross-border litigation through an efficient system of judicial cooperation based on comprehensive jurisdiction rules, coordination of parallel proceedings, and circulation of judgments. The judicial cooperation system of the Regulation has adapted to the changing institutional environment and to new modern commercial life challenges. Although there is no systematic collection of statistical data in most Member States, as it concerns the application of the Regulation some data has been collected from certain Member States. Generally speaking the Regulation is mainly applied in economic centres and border regions, the jurisdiction rules apply in a small number of cases, the rules on recognition and enforcement are more frequently applied but the number is unknown.[23].

 

Art. 73 of the Regulation provided that the Commission should present a report concerning the application of the Regulation within five years following its entry into force and, if it was deemed necessary it would present proposals for adaptations to the Regulation. The Commission indeed presented its report on the Brussels I Regulation in April 2009 evaluating its application as we will see later on. The report was accompanied by a Green Paper setting out possible ways forward to deal with the problems raised in the report[24].

 

  1. Reviewing the Regulation

 

Although the Regulation is considered to work successfully a number of legal and empirical studies commissioned by the EU Commission revealed a number of deficiencies in the current operation of the Regulation which should be remedied[25]. Generally speaking the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is proceeded in three steps:

  1. recognition of foreign judgment,
  2. declaration of the enforcement of the foreign judgment (exequator),
  3. the enforcement of foreign judgment[26].

 

2.1. Exequatar

 

Exequatar” is the term given to a key procedural component in the system established under the Regulation for the recognition and enforcement of judgments within the EU[27]. When it comes to enforcing a judgment the courts of the enforcing state must first declare the judgment to be enforceable, however procedures differ from state to state and are governed by local legislation. However not all types of claim can be enforced even if both States are bound by the Regulation[28]. Following the political mandate by the European Council in the Tampere (1999) and The Hague (2004) programs, the main objective of the revision of the Regulation concentrates on the exequatur procedure in all matters covered by the Regulation. According to the existing exequatur procedure when the application is complete, first instance proceedings before the courts in the Member States last, on average, from seven days to four months and when the application is incomplete, proceedings last longer. Given that applications are often incomplete judicial authorities ask for additional information, e.g. translations, however, most applications for a declaration of enforceability are successful and only a small percentage of the decisions of 1 and 5% are appealed[29].

 

The EU Commission’s view is that in an internal market without unnecessary barriers exequatur could be abolished, along with the litigation costs it imposes[30]. The Commission argues that the abolition of exequatur would have the following benefits:

  • it would create a system facilitating the free circulation of judgments within the EU 
  • it would eliminate the costs and delays associated with the current procedure in the vast majority of cases where enforceability of a judgment is not contested by a defendant
  • it would persuade more businesses and consumers to engage in cross-border trade
  • it would benefit claimants in the position of weaker parties given that it would improve e.g. the situation for an employee seeking to enforce a judgment against his or her employer in another Member State

 

The EU Commission has proposed that the exequatur procedure should be retained for judgments in defamation and collective redress cases[31].

 

2.2. Subsidiary Jurisdiction

 

There are no harmonised rules on subsidiary jurisdiction and this causes an unequal access to justice for EU citizens. This is valid in cases where a party would not get a fair hearing or adequate protection before the courts of third States. The absence of common rules determining jurisdiction against third State defendants jeopardizes the application of mandatory Community legislation, e.g. on consumer protection, commercial agents, data protection or product liability. Citizens of Member States where no such additional jurisdictional protection exists, cannot bring proceedings against third State defendants. The absence of common rules on the effect of third State judgments in the Community may lead in some Member States to situations where third State judgments are recognised and enforced even where such judgments are in breach of mandatory Community law or Community law provides for exclusive jurisdiction of Member States’ courts[32].

 

 

 

2.3. Applicable law to choice of court agreements

 

As it concerns the law applicable to choice of court agreements article 23 of the Regulation, as interpreted by the ECJ, lays down extensively the conditions concerning the validity of choice of forum agreements, however uncertainties exist as it concerns the comprehensive character of these conditions. Sometimes the consent among the parties is made subject, on a residual basis, to national law, determined by reference to the lex fori or to the lex causae leading to undesirable consequences, in that a choice of court agreement may be considered valid in one Member State and invalid in another[33]. In Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Limited v. Quinn Investments Sweden AB & Others[34] the High Court had to consider applications under Articles 23 and 28 of the Regulation.  While the High Court was dealing with the application under Article 23, it felt that, on the Article 28 application, further clarification was required and referred the matter to the ECJ, adjourning the proceedings pending that determination. Clarke J. declined the application made under Article 23 given that there is no agreement conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of any other Member State[35].

 

2.4. Lis pendens

Pursuant Article 27 of the Regulation, if proceedings involving the same cause of action and among the same parties are brought before the courts of different Member States, the competence is given to the first judge seised, if the court’s competence is established[36]. As it concerns choice of court and lis pendens there are doubts that the Regulation would sufficiently protect exclusive choice of court agreements, given that one party may seize the courts of a Member State in violation of the choice of court agreement, therefore obstructing proceedings before the chosen court insofar as the latter are brought subsequently to the first proceedings. In Case C-116/02 (Gasser)[37], the ECJ confirmed that the lis pendens rule of the Regulation requires the court second seized to suspend proceedings until the court first seized has established or declined jurisdiction[38]. The decision in Gasser gave priority to the Regulation’s lis pendens rule over an agreed exclusive jurisdiction. By doing so it has been argued that it has undermined the ability of commercial parties to select effectively a jurisdiction in order to resolve their disputes, thus leading to uncertainty and additional expenses[39]. In Case C-159/02 (Turner)[40], the Court confirmed that procedural devices existing under national law which may strengthen the effect of choice of court agreements are incompatible with the Regulation if they interfere excessively with the determination by the courts of other Member States of their jurisdiction under the Regulation[41]. As it concern lis pendens in industrial property matters the operation of Regulation raises difficulties both for the holder of such rights and those who wish to challenge them[42]. Moreover the requirement that both actions must be pending before the courts and the reference to national law for the conditions of consolidation of related actions hampers an effective consolidation of proceedings at Community level[43].

 

The EU Commission proposed two amendments to enhance the effectiveness of choice of court agreements, according to the first proposal, if the parties have chosen a court to resolve their dispute priority should be given to the chosen court to and according to the second proposal a harmonised conflict of law rule on the substantive validity of choice of court agreements is involved ensuring a similar outcome on this issue[44].

 

2.5. Provisional measures

 

Provisional measures suffer from the diversity in the national procedural laws of the Member States thus making the free circulation of such measures difficult e.g. in cases where protective measures were ordered without the defendant being summoned to appear and which are intended to be enforced without prior service of the defendant or with protective orders aimed at obtaining information and evidence. Difficulties have been reported as it concerns the application of the conditions set by the ECJ in Cases C-391/95 (Van Uden)[45] and C-99/96 (Mietz)[46] for the issuance of provisional measures ordered by a court which does not have jurisdiction[47].

 

2.6. Arbitration

During the preparation of the Regulation the arbitration exception was not discussed in the preparatory reports and was retained in the Regulation. Given that it can safely be presumed that the intention was to follow the same scope of the exception as in the Brussels Convention[48]. It follows that the Regulation does not apply to arbitral tribunals or to state courts in cases in which the courts have to render decisions relating to arbitral proceedings or arbitral awards[49]. Thus arbitration falls outside the scope of the Regulation given that the recognition and enforcement of arbitral agreements and awards is governed by the 1958 New York Convention, however the Regulation has in specific instances been interpreted as supporting arbitration and the recognition/enforcement of arbitral awards. Judgments merging an arbitral award were recognised and enforced in accordance with the Regulation and provisional measures relating to the merits of arbitration proceedings may be granted on the basis of Article 31. However, the interface among the Regulation and arbitration raises difficulties[50]. As a result of the ECJ’s decision in Case C-185/07 West Tankers[51], the exclusion of arbitration from the Regulation has diminished. Following this decision, whenever a court characterises the subject matter of a claim brought before it as a matter within the scope of the Regulation, any issue as to the existence, scope or validity of an arbitration clause is a preliminary or incidental issue. This means in essence that the courts of an arbitral seat can not protect the arbitration or take any action themselves[52]. A question is raised as to whether a judgment of a foreign court is enforceable under the Regulation if the court unlawfully disregarded the existence of an arbitration agreement and, therefore, had no jurisdiction whatsoever. The predominant view is that such a decision must be recognized and declared enforceable given that even if a valid arbitration agreement exists, the court’s decision in dispute has been rendered in a civil and commercial matter, so in essence it has no connection to arbitration[53].

 

2.7. Competent Court

 

In identifying the competent judge, the Regulation, rather than referring to the domestic rules of the specific States, directly establishes principles allowing the identification of only one competent judge for each controversy[54]. There are however, difficulties in the practical application of Article 71 concerning the relation between the Regulation and conventions on particular matters e.g. as it concerns the term “domicile” no difficulties arise in practice when the courts apply their national concept of “domicile” on the basis of Article 59(1), however, the determination that a party is domiciled in another Member State in accordance with foreign law (Article 59(2)) is difficult. Moreover, there was no equation of domicile with habitual residence in the Brussels Convention nor in the Regulation since Art.5(2) provides a separate reference to the latter concept.[55] In any case the general rule set out in Article 2 is that jurisdiction lies with the courts of the Member State of the defendant’s domicile[56]. If the defendant is a company or other legal person, Article 60 lays down that, for the purposes of the regulation, it is domiciled at the place where it has its statutory seat, or central administration or its principal place of business.[57] The Regulation introduced for the contracts of sales and services, identifying the place of performance respectively with the place of delivery and with the place where the services have been or should have been rendered (Article 5.1) and as it concerns torts, delicts or quasi-delicts, the Regulation establishes the alternative jurisdiction of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur and this rule has been interpreted as including both the place where the damage occurred and the place where the harmful event happened, considering the initial direct damage, but not the consequential damages[58]. Moreover the operation of certain jurisdiction rules could be improved, e.g. in Case C-462/06 (Glaxosmithkline)[59], the ECJ confirmed that Article 6(1) does not apply in the context of employment matters and the non-uniform application of Article 6(2) and 11 on third party proceedings pursuant to Article 65 raises difficulties. Furthermore e.g. the reference to the law applicable to the transportation contract in order to determine the binding force of a jurisdiction agreement in a bill of lading for the third party holder of the bill of lading is argued as artificial[60].

 

2.8. Application for non-signatory Member States

 

The Regulation does not apply in relation to defendants domiciled outside the EU[61]. The EU Commission points out that the current national rules of jurisdiction concerning defendants domiciled outside the EU vary widely and it argues that for claimants, particularly those domiciled within the EU, this complex state of affairs is unsatisfactory and has the potential:

(a) to result in unequal access to justice,

(b) for companies wishing to do business in the internal market, to create difficulties which can amount to a barrier to free competition

(c) to fail adequately to protect weaker parties, particularly as regards the enforcement of EU legislation.

This is why the Commission proposes an extension of the current rules of jurisdiction to cover disputes involving defendants domiciled outside the EU[62].

 

2.9. Exclusive Jurisdiction

 

The Regulation in article 22 lists various exclusive jurisdictions independent from the domicile of the defendant and exclusive competence is granted, with some specifications to the courts of the Member State where the property is situated in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property, or to the courts of the Member State where the company, legal person or association has its seat in proceedings which have as their object the validity of the constitution, the nullity or the dissolution of companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, or of the validity of the decisions of their organs[63]. In its famous trilogy of decisions in Erich Gasser GmbH v MISAT Srl[64], Turner v Grovit[65] and Owusu v Jackson[66], the ECJ gave judgments which appeared to deliver near fatal wounds to the survival of the common law rules of jurisdiction for matters falling within the scope of the Regulation. But this is far from the case, since it seems that the common law has been busy reinventing itself and searching for ways to limit the impact of these landmark decisions[67].

 

It has been argued that the Commission’s Report on the application of the Brussels I Regulation rightly points out that the Regulation in general meets with great approval by those who rely on the instrument and/or apply it[68].

 

  1. Green Paper and Report proposals

 

Apart from the abovementioned there are certain other omissions e.g. neither the Regulation nor the Commission Proposal for the Regulation defines the phrase “provision of services” which casts uncertainty on whether “financial services” is included within the meaning of the former term[69]. The EU Commission has proposed the following amendments to the Regulation in order to improve the coordination of legal proceedings in the Member States:

  • improve the operation of the intra-EU lis pendens rule, by setting down a time limit within which the court first seised of the dispute must decide on its jurisdiction
  • a provision to facilitate the consolidation of related actions by abolishing the current technical requirement that consolidation must be permissible under national law
  • proposals relating to provisional, including protective, measures[70]

 

The Commission addresses in the report and the green paper the following issues:

  • The removal of “exequatur” given that “exequatur” remains an obstacle to the free circulation of judgments which entails unnecessary costs and delays for the parties involved.[71] However a very large majority of stakeholders opined that the abolition of exequatur should be accompanied by safeguards, in particular to protect the rights of defence of the party against whom the enforcement is sought.[72]
  • The protection of European citizens and companies in case of disputes with parties domiciled in third States given that access to justice in the EU is unsatisfactory in disputes involving defendants from outside the EU[73]
  • Certain imperfections in the application of certain rules of the Regulation, e.g. avoiding parallel proceedings in different Member States, ensuring the application of contractual agreements as to which courts will deal with the case in the Union[74] The efficiency of choice of court agreements needs to be improved, the same is valid as it concerns the  interface between arbitration and litigation[75]

 

The EU Commission has proposed a range of technical amendments aiming at improving the following practical functioning of the jurisdiction rules:

  • the creation of a jurisdiction for the resolution of claims to rights in rem in or possession of moveable property in the place where the moveable assets are located
  • the possibility to bring actions against multiple defendants in the employment area under Article 6(1), in order to overcome the lacuna created by ECJ Case C-462/06 Glaxosmithkline[76]
  • the possibility to conclude choice of court agreements in relation to disputes over commercial leases
  • the provision of mandatory information for a defendant in a weaker position, such as a consumer, an insured person or an employee, who enters an appearance about the legal consequences of not contesting the court’s jurisdiction[77]

 

In any case improvements should be accepted if requested and justified by real practical needs and should not interfere with the well established general structure and principles of the Regulation. The Green Paper poses seven questions concerning several specific aspects of the Brussels I Regulation and invites to address other aspects, too, it also raises a number of aspects where improvements of the Regulation are imaginable and conceivable[78].

 

“Suggested areas for reform

exequatur (see paragraphs 23-30) in the context of the international recognition and enforcement of judgments,

(ii)  The operation of the Regulation in the broader international order,

(iii)  The operation of choice of court clauses,

(iv)  Intellectual property,

(v)  Rules governing lis pendens (see paragraphs 49-71) and related actions,

(vi)  Provisional measures such as interim injunctions,

(vii)  The interface of the Regulation with arbitration proceedings, and

(viii)Other issues covering scope, jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement.”[79]

 

Conclusion

 

According to Professor Dr. Hess[80], the Regulation is one of the most successful pieces of EU legislation and the fact that the rules contained in Regulation have survived almost 42 years without major conceptual revision, is impressive. However, the underlying rationale for the Regulation has varied[81].It has been argued that the Regulation should be amended in order to allow a reflexive effect to be given to exclusive choice-of-court clauses in favor of third States’ courts[82].

 

Moreover commercial developments in the securities industry have out-paced legal rules designed to provide certainty to securities transactions and many legal rules remain predicated on a commercial infrastructure that does not exist today. In the context of jurisdiction, an application of Brussels I to a cross-border transaction in securities does not produce uniform and predictable results, unless, in the absence of a contractual forum clause, the Article 2 default rule applies[83].

 

Also allowing claims in respect of rights in rem in moveable property and possession to be heard by the courts for the place where the assets are located may serve the goals of proximity of predictability underlying the special heads of jurisdiction of the Regulation[84].

 

In addition the relation between arbitration and the Regulation has been controversial for years and was probably the most contentious facet of the debate on the review of the Regulation[85].

 

In spite of considerable progress that has been achieved during the past few years, there is still no free circulation of all judgments in civil and commercial matters, as asked on several occasions by the European Council. In any case, the technical amendments to the existing Regulation can only be realised at Union level[86].

Generally speaking the Purpose of the Regulation was:

  • to determine the appropriate court with jurisdiction to determine international proceedings within the EU and provide mandatory rules for the recognition
  • to facilitate free movement and enforcement of the judgments of courts of other Member States within the European Union.

However the following have been identified as being necessary for reform:

  • the abolition of the remaining intermediary procedures for the recognition and enforcement of judgments, principally exequatur, the desire to have a general improvement of access to justice for European citizens and companies in international disputes
  • enhancing the effectiveness of choice of court agreements
  • improving the rules to prevent parallel proceedings in the EU
  • improving the relation between court and arbitral proceedings[87]

It seems that the Regulation has many issues that require review and perhaps modification. However the Regulation’s application may be characterised overall as rather satisfactory. The truth is that there are not so many legal texts that endure this long without the necessity of total revision. The Regulation is a good guide and a first attempt at a Community Level. Although it took many principles from a previously rather successful Convention, modern times challenge the Regulation in a way that the Convention was never challenged in the past.

The Regulation hoped to determine the appropriate court and facilitate free movement and enforcement of the courts’ judgements. It may has lacunas, it may be criticised, reforms may be and have been proposed however if a label had to be chosen to characterise the Regulation the title “efficient” would suffice or to speak in plain English “nicely done, way to go though, way to go”.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

ARTICLES

 

  1.     Andrew Dickinson, The Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Recast) (“Brussels I bis” Regulation), Sydney Law School, Legal Studies Research Paper, No. 11/58, September 2011, Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1930712
  1. Andrew Pullen, Senior Associate, Allen & Overy LLP, The reform of the Brussels Regulation: a crossroads for arbitration in Europe, Published on 02-Sep-2009, http://arbitration.practicallaw.com/6-422-4885
  1.     B. Hess/T. Pfeiffer/P. Schlosser, Report on the Application of Regulation Brussels I in the Member States (Study JLS/C4/2005/03 also referred to as the »Heidelberg Report«)
  2.     C.H.Spurin & Gwyn Tovey, Jurisdiction over actions In Personam, where the defendant is domiciled in the E.C., Lecture Ten, Private International Law: Conflict of Laws, Lecture 4 EU Law : Conflict of Laws, 1992-2008
  3.     Dr Lilla Kiràly and Nicholas Squires,  Legal Aid in the EU: from the Brussels Convention of 1968 to the Legal Aid Directive of 2003, EUROPEAN LAW
  1. Elisa Torralba, Defamation at the Age of Communications: New? Perspectives of Private International Law in the UE, InDret, Vol. 1, 2012
  2. Gearóid Carey, Jurisdiction Questions under Regulation 44/2001, Practice Area Group: Commercial Litigation and Dispute Resolution, 24.01.2012, http://www.mop.ie/news-and-insight/insight/pages/jurisdiction-questions-under-regulation-442001
  1.     Harris, Jonathan, The Brussels I Regulation and the Re-Emergence of the English Common Law, The European Legal Forum (E) 4-2008, 181 – 189, © 2008 IPR Verlag GmbH München, The European Legal Forum – Internet Portal Literature Doc. 888, www.european-legal-forum.com
  2.     Henrik Ringbom, EU Regulation 44/2001 and its Implications for the International Maritime Liability Conventions, Journal of Maritime Law & Commerce, Vol. 35, No. 1, January, 2004
  1. Henry Drummonds, Cross-Border Employment Contracts, Choice of Law, Choice of Forum, and the Enforcement of Cross-Border Judgments in the European Union lobal Labor and Employment Law for the Practicing Lawyer, Forthcoming, Lewis & Clark Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2010-20
  1. Herbert Smith, Brussels Regulation (EC Regulation 44/2001), 24/4/2002, http:// www. herbertsmith. com/ Publications/archive/2002/it24apr2002.htm
  1. Joanne Scott, From Brussels with Love: The Transatlantic Travels of European Law and the Chemistry of Regulatory Attraction, University College London – Faculty of Laws, January 27, 2009, American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 57, No. 4, 2009
  1. John JA Burke, Anatoly Ostrovskiy, The Intermediated Securities System: Brussels I Breakdown, The European Legal Forum, Issue 5-2007
  2. John JA Burke, Brussels I Regulation (EC) 44/2001: Application to financial services under article 5(1)(B), Columbia Journal of European Law Summer, 2004, 10 Colum. J. Eur. L. 527m, Westlaw
  3. Klara Svobodova, Arbitration exception in the Regulation Brussels I, Právnická fakulta Masarykovy univerzity, Česká republika
  4. Luca G. Radicati di Brozolo, Arbitration and the draft revised Brussels I Regulation: Seeds of Home Country Control and of Harmonization?, Journal of Private International Law, Hart Publishing, Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1895303
  5. Lucio Lanucara, Brussels Convention (Encyclopedia), 2009, http:// www. bankpedia. org/ index. php/ en/87-english/b/23146-brussels-convention-encyclopedia
  6. Mag. Miha Žebre, The Revision of Brussels I Regulation and the Abolition of Exequatur
  1. Maebh Harding, The Harmonisation of Private International Law in Europe: Taking the Character Out of Family Law?, Journal of Private International Law, Vol. 1, 2011, University of Portsmouth, School of Law
  2. Michael G. Faure and Gerrit Betlem, Applying National Liability Law to Transboundary Pollution: Some Lessons from Europe and the United States, China and International Environmental Liability; Legal Remedies for Transboundary Pollution, Chapter 6, pp. 121-199, M. Faure, Y. Song, eds., Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2008
  3. Michael L. Rustad, Circles of E-Consumer Trust: Old E-America v. New E-Europe, Michigan State University College of Law Journal of International Law, Forthcoming, Suffolk University Law School Research Paper No. 07-37
  4. Miller Rosenfalck LLP, Enforcement of Judgments under the Brussels Regulation, February 13, 2009, Posted in Dispute resolution, Guides, Publications, http:// www. millerrosenfalck. com/ 2009/ 02/ dispute-resolution-guide/
  1. Pietro Franzina, The proposed new rule of special Jurisdiction regarding rights in rem in movable property: A good option for a reformed Brussels I Regulation?, Diritto del commercio internazionale, 3/2011
  1. Ronald A. Brand, The Lugano Case in the European Court of Justice: Evolving European Union Competence in Private International Law, ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, Vol. 11, pp. 297-303, 2005, U. of Pittsburgh Legal Studies Research Paper Series, University of Pittsburgh – School of Law
  2. S.I. Strong, Cross-Border Collective Redress in the European Union: Constitutional Rights in the Face of the Brussels I Regulation, University of Missouri School of Law September 16, 2012, Arizona State Law Journal, Vol. 45, 2013, University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-19
  1. Veronika Gaertner, Commission’s Report and Green Paper on Brussels I Regulation, Conflict of Laws.net News and Views in Private International Law, April 22, 2009, http://conflictoflaws.net/2009/commissions-report-and-green-paper-on-brussels-i-regulation/
  2. Veronika Hradilova, The Free Movement of Judgments within the European Union: Process of Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, Pravnicka fakulta Masarykovy university, Ceska republika
  1. Ugljesa Grusic, Jurisdiction in Complex Contracts Under the Brussels I Regulation, Journal of Private International Law, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 321-340, 2011, University of Nottingham – School of Law; London School of Economics & Political Science (LSE)
  1. Ulrich Magnus and Peter Mankowski, Joint Response to the Green Paper on the Review of the Brussels Regulation
  1. Zheng Sophia Tang, Exclusive Choice of Forum Clauses and Consumer Contracts in E-Commerce, (2005) 1 Journal of Private International Law 237-268, University of Leeds, School of Law, June 10, 2012
  2. Zheng Sophia Tang, Party Autonomy in Civil and Commercial Matters, University of Leeds, School of Law, June 7, 2012

 

MISCELLANEOUS

 

  1. A guide for business to the application of Article 15(1)(C) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, Department for Culture, media and sport
  2. Commission of the European Communities, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament the Council and the European Economic and social committee on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, Brussels 21.4.2009. COM (2009) 174 final
  3. Council of the European Union Civil Law European Judicial Cooperation, 2004 General Secretariat of the Council
  4. Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Ireland – Dillon Eustace, 2007
  5. European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, Brussels, 14.12.2010 COM(2010) 748 final 2010/0383 (COD)
  6. Green Paper on the Brussels I Regulation, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldeucom/148/14804.htm
  7. James Bridgeman Barrister at Law Chartered Arbitrator, Arbitration and the Revision of Brussels 1 Regulation, 9 April 2011
  8. Ministry of Justice, Revision of the Brussels I Regulation-How should the UK approach the negotiations, Consultation Paper CP18/10, This consultation begins on 22 December 2010, This consultation ends on 11 February 2011
  9. The Evolution of the Choice of Court Clauses : the “Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements”, Brussels I Regulation No 44/2001, Jeudi 10 Mars 2011. Un article de SOCCIO Stessie, The evolution of jurisdiction clauses : from the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 to the report of 29 June 2010 on the implementation and review of Brussels I Regulation No 44/2001, Voir aussi Autres documents liés au thème “Litiges / cours & tribunaux” Défédéraliser la justice Compétence préjudicielle de la Cour constitutionnelle étendue La Cour constitutionnelle sauvegarde le secret professionnel des avocats Devenir avocet Contrat de stage d’avocat (Bruxelles F) http://www.businessandlaw.be/article1593.html
  10. ROADMAP, Title of the initiative: Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (“Brussels I”) Lead DG/contact person: DG JLS/E2 Expected date of adoption of the initiative (month/year): December 2010 Date of modification: 24.3.2010 Version no: 3

 

INTERNET RESOURCES

 

  1. Case law Brussels I Regulation (44/2001), http:// www. dutchcivillaw. com/ caselaw/ brusregone001. htm
  1. Enforcement Issues Arising under European Law, 19 December 2011, http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/detail.aspx?publication=4734
  1. Brussels Regulation, http://arbitration.practicallaw.com/2-205-5103
  2. The Role of Private International Law and Alternative Dispute Resolution, http:// www. wipo. int/ copyright/en/ecommerce/ip_survey/chap4.html

 

TABLE OF CASES

 

  1.     Allianz SpA v West Tankers Inc. ECJ Case C-185/07
  2.     Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Limited v. Quinn Investments Sweden AB & Others  [2011] IEHC 356
  3.     Erich Gasser GmbH v MISAT Srl ECJ 9 December 2003 – C-116/02 Turner v Grovit ECJ 27 April 2004 – C-159/02
  4.     Johann Gruber v Bay Wa AG’ ECJ Case C-464/01, ECR 2005 p. I-00439) 20 January 2005
  5.     Glaxosmithkline and another v Rouard ECJ Case C-462/06
  6.     Mietz v Intership Yachting Sneek BV ECJ Case C-99/96
  7.     Owusu v Jackson ECJ 1 March 2005 – C-281/02
  8.     Van Uden Maritime BV, trading as Van Uden Africa Line v Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line and Another. ECJ C-391/95

 

 

[1] The Role of Private International Law and Alternative Dispute Resolution, http:// www. wipo. int/ copyright/en/ecommerce/ip_survey/chap4.html

[2] Veronika Hradilova, The Free Movement of Judgments within the European Union: Process of Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, Pravnicka fakulta Masarykovy university, Ceska republika at. p. 1

[3] Dr Lilla Kiràly and Nicholas Squires,  Legal Aid in the EU: from the Brussels Convention of 1968 to the Legal Aid Directive of 2003, EUROPEAN LAW at. p. 1

[4] Lucio Lanucara, Brussels Convention (Encyclopedia), 2009, http:// www. bankpedia. org/ index. php/ en/87-english/b/23146-brussels-convention-encyclopedia, accessed 4/9/2012

[5] Council of the European Union Civil Law European Judicial Cooperation, 2004 General Secretariat of the Council at p. 10

[6] Miller Rosenfalck LLP, Enforcement of Judgments under the Brussels Regulation, February 13, 2009, Posted in Dispute resolution, Guides, Publications, http:// www. millerrosenfalck. com/ 2009/ 02/ dispute-resolution-guide/, accessed 1/9/2012

[7] Lucio Lanucara, ibid. 4

[8] Brussels Regulation, http://arbitration.practicallaw.com/2-205-5103, accessed 12/9/2012

[9] Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Ireland – Dillon Eustace, 2007 at p. 1

[10] Henrik Ringbom, EU Regulation 44/2001 and its Implications for the International Maritime Liability Conventions, Journal of Maritime Law & Commerce, Vol. 35, No. 1, January, 2004 at p. 2

[11] Ulrich Magnus and Peter Mankowski, Joint Response to the Green Paper on the Review of the Brussels Regulation at p. 1

[12] Ministry of Justice, Revision of the Brussels I Regulation-How should the UK approach the negotiations, Consultation Paper CP18/10, This consultation begins on 22 December 2010, This consultation ends on 11 February 2011 at p. 5

[13] A guide for business to the application of Article 15(1)(C) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, Department for Culture, media and sport at. p. 3

[14] Council of the European Union Civil Law European Judicial Cooperation, op. cit. 5 at p. 15

[15] European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, Brussels, 14.12.2010 COM(2010) 748 final 2010/0383 (COD) at p. 3

[16] Ministry of Justice, op. cit. 12 at p. 5

[17] Johann Gruber v Bay Wa AG’ ECJ Case C-464/01, ECR 2005 p. I-00439) 20 January 2005

[18] Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Ireland op. cit. 9 at p. 1

[19] Lucio Lanucara, ibid. 4

[20] Council of the European Union Civil Law European Judicial Cooperation, op. cit. at p. 12

[21] Council of the European Union Civil Law European Judicial Cooperation, op. cit. at p. 11

[22] Andrew Dickinson, The Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Recast) (“Brussels I bis” Regulation), Sydney Law School, Legal Studies Research Paper, No. 11/58, September 2011, Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1930712 at p. 3

[23] Commission of the European Communities, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament the Council and the European Economic and social committee on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, Brussels 21.4.2009. COM (2009) 174 final at. p. 3

[24] ROADMAP, Title of the initiative: Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (“Brussels I”) Lead DG/contact person: DG JLS/E2 Expected date of adoption of the initiative (month/year): December 2010 Date of modification: 24.3.2010 Version no: 3

[25] European Commission, op. cit. 15 at p. 3-4

[26] Veronika Hradilova, op. cit. 2, at p. 2

[27] Ministry of Justice, op. cit. 12 at p. 7

[28] Miller Rosenfalck LLP, ibid. 6

[29] Commission of the European Communities, op. cit. 23 at. p. 4

[30] Ministry of Justice, op. cit. 12 at p. 7

[31] Ministry of Justice, op. cit. 12 at p. 7-8

[32] Commission of the European Communities, op. cit. 23 at. p. 5

[33] Commission of the European Communities, op. cit. 23 at. p. 5

[34] [2011] IEHC 356

[35] Gearóid Carey, Jurisdiction Questions under Regulation 44/2001, Practice Area Group: Commercial Litigation and Dispute Resolution, 24.01.2012, http://www.mop.ie/news-and-insight/insight/pages/jurisdiction-questions-under-regulation-442001, accessed 16/9/2012

[36] Lucio Lanucara, ibid. 4

[37] ECJ 9 December 2003 – C-116/02 – Erich Gasser GmbH v MISAT Srl [2003] ECR I-14693 = [2004] EuLF (E) 49

[38] Commission of the European Communities, op. cit. 23 at. p. 6

[39] Ministry of Justice, op. cit. 12 at p. 18

[40] ECJ 27 April 2004 – C-159/02 – Turner v Grovit [2005] ECR I-3565 =[2004] EuLF (E) 120

[41] Commission of the European Communities, op. cit. 23 at. p. 6

[42] Commission of the European Communities, op. cit. 23 pp. 6-7

[43] Commission of the European Communities, op. cit. 23 at. p. 7

[44] Ministry of Justice, op. cit. 12 at p. 19

[45] ECJ Van Uden Maritime BV, trading as Van Uden Africa Line v Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line and Another. ECJ C-391/95

[46] Mietz v Intership Yachting Sneek BV ECJ Case C-99/96

[47] Commission of the European Communities, op. cit. 23 at. p. 8

[48] Klara Svobodova, Arbitration exception in the Regulation Brussels I, Právnická fakulta Masarykovy univerzity, Česká republika

[49] Enforcement Issues Arising under European Law, 19 December 2011, http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/detail.aspx?publication=4734, accessed 22/9/2012

[50] Commission of the European Communities, op. cit. 23 at. p. 9

[51] Allianz SpA v West Tankers Inc. ECJ Case C-185/07

[52] Ministry of Justice, op. cit. 12 at p. 20-21

[53] Enforcement Issues Arising under European Law, 19 December 2011, ibid. 49

[54] Lucio Lanucara, ibid. 4

[55] C.H.Spurin & Gwyn Tovey, Jurisdiction over actions In Personam, where the defendant is domiciled in the E.C., Lecture Ten, Private International Law: Conflict of Laws, Lecture 4 EU Law : Conflict of Laws, 1992-2008

[56] Council of the European Union Civil Law European Judicial Cooperation, op. cit. 5 at p. 14

[57] Council of the European Union Civil Law European Judicial Cooperation, op. cit. 5 at p. 14-15

[58] Lucio Lanucara, ibid. 4

[59] Glaxosmithkline and another v Rouard ECJ Case C-462/06

[60] Commission of the European Communities, op. cit. 23 pp. 9-10

[61] Ministry of Justice, op. cit. 12 at p. 13

[62] Ministry of Justice, op. cit. 12 at p. 14

[63] Lucio Lanucara, ibid. 4

[64] Ibid 37

[65] ECJ 27 April 2004 – C-159/02 – Turner v Grovit [2005] ECR I-3565 =[2004] EuLF (E) 120

[66] ECJ 1 March 2005 – C-281/02 – Owusu v Jackson [2005] ECR I-1383 = [2005] EuLF I-72, II-66

[67] Harris, Jonathan, The Brussels I Regulation and the Re-Emergence of the English Common Law, The European Legal Forum (E) 4-2008, 181 – 189, © 2008 IPR Verlag GmbH München, The European Legal Forum – Internet Portal Literature Doc. 888, www.european-legal-forum.com

[68] Ulrich Magnus and Peter Mankowski, op. cit. 11 at p. 1

[69] John JA Burke, Brussels I Regulation (EC) 44/2001: Application to financial services under article 5(1)(B), Columbia Journal of European Law Summer, 2004, 10 Colum. J. Eur. L. 527m, Westlaw at. p. 1

[70] Ministry of Justice, op. cit. 12 at p. 22-23

[71] European Commission, op. cit. 15 at p. 3-4

[72] European Commission, op. cit. 15 at p. 5

[73] European Commission, op. cit. 15 at p. 3-4

[74] Veronika Gaertner, Commission’s Report and Green Paper on Brussels I Regulation, Conflict of Laws.net News and Views in Private International Law, April 22, 2009, http://conflictoflaws.net/2009/commissions-report-and-green-paper-on-brussels-i-regulation/, accessed 21/9/2012

[75] European Commission, op. cit. 15 at p. 3-4

[76] Ibid 59

[77] Ministry of Justice, op. cit. 12 at p. 24

[78] Ulrich Magnus and Peter Mankowski, op. cit. 11  at p. 1

[79] Green Paper on the Brussels I Regulation, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldeucom/148/14804.htm

[80] B. Hess/T. Pfeiffer/P. Schlosser, Report on the Application of Regulation Brussels I in the Member States (Study JLS/C4/2005/03 also referred to as the »Heidelberg Report«), para. 1.

[81] Mag. Miha Žebre, The Revision of Brussels I Regulation and the Abolition of Exequatur

[82] The Evolution of the Choice of Court Clauses : the “Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements”, Brussels I Regulation No 44/2001, Jeudi 10 Mars 2011. Un article de SOCCIO Stessie, The evolution of jurisdiction clauses : from the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 to the report of 29 June 2010 on the implementation and review of Brussels I Regulation No 44/2001, Voir aussi Autres documents liés au thème “Litiges / cours & tribunaux” Défédéraliser la justice Compétence préjudicielle de la Cour constitutionnelle étendue La Cour constitutionnelle sauvegarde le secret professionnel des avocats Devenir avocet Contrat de stage d’avocat (Bruxelles F) http://www.businessandlaw.be/article1593.html, accessed 11/9/2012

[83] John JA Burke, Anatoly Ostrovskiy, The Intermediated Securities System: Brussels I Breakdown, The European Legal Forum, Issue 5-2007 at p. 9

[84] Pietro Franzina, The proposed new rule of special Jurisdiction regarding rights in rem in movable property: A good option for a reformed Brussels I Regulation?, Diritto del commercio internazionale, 3/2011

[85] Luca G. Radicati di Brozolo, Arbitration and the draft revised Brussels I Regulation: Seeds of Home Country Control and of Harmonization?, Journal of Private International Law, Hart Publishing, Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1895303, accessed 8/9/2012

[86] ROADMAP, ibid. 24

[87] James Bridgeman Barrister at Law Chartered Arbitrator, Arbitration and the Revision of Brussels 1 Regulation, 9 April 2011