Brussels Convention Research Articles

Performance of Obligations as the Basis of Jurisdiction and Choice of Law (Lugano and Brussels Conventions Article 5(1) and Rome Convention Article 4)

AbstractWhen a dispute arises in connection with an international contract, it is necessary to clarify two matters: (i) the courts of which country are competent to decide on the dispute, and (ii) the law of which country applies to the merits of the dispute. Within the European Union, these matters are clarified, respectively, by the Brussels Convention on (i.a.) jurisdiction and by the Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations. The scope of application of the Brussels Convention is extended also to cover the EFTA Countries, through the Lugano Convention. The scope of the Rome Convention, on the contrary, does not reach beyond the European Union. This imbalance in the relationship between choice of forum and choice of law is particularly noticeable in Norway, which does not have a codified system of choice of law rules. The relationship between choice of forum rules and choice of law rules is highlighted in this article from the point of view of a specific connecting factor: the performance of the disputed obligation.

THE PROPOSED HAGUE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION, RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS

A new international agreement on juridiction and foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters is needed because the Hague Convention of 1971 has proven unworkable. The Brussels Convention of 1968 and the Lugano Convention of 1988 were helpful in resolving jurisdictional issues in the European context, but because of the lack of reciprocity in the european approach, even though North American courts have a liberal approach towards the recognition of foreign judgements, North American judgements are at a disadvantage before European courts. The United States’ initiative in promoting a consistent international approach to the enforcement of foreign judgments may lead to a new Hague Convention. The author discusses procedures of the Hague Conference on Private International Law and the work of the Special Commission, which is charged with the task of working up a draft text for a new judgments convention. The author’s view is that decisions made at the Hague Conference will have real impacts on the practice of international lawyers and their clients. He identifies key members of the Canadian delegation to the Special Commission and encourages practitioners to contact the members so their concerns and ideas will be considered during the drafting process of the convention.

Le Rapprochement des Procédures Civiles dans l'Union Européenne

The great flow of transactions permitted by the suppression of borders gives rise day after day to a large number of disputes. Seventeen different sets of procedural rules are put into action to deal with them, one for each Member State, but with the United Kindom having three of them. Procedures which differ from each other in their content, their speed and their cost, in the effectiveness of the measures they place at the disposal of litigants, and in their suitability for ensuring the enforcement of those measures. These differences constitute, in many respects, a serious obstacle to the establishment and functioning of the internal market. They obscure the rules of the game for the litigant who must bring or defend and action away from the state of his domicile. They find expression in very unequal procedural costs from one country to the next. The means of action put at the disposal of individuals are, in fact, of very variable efficacy. In order to remedy that state of affairs, a first attempt to tackle the issue was made on the basis of Article 100 A of the Treaty of Rome. Under the direction of Professor Marcel Storme, with the support of the European Commission, these efforts resulted in a draft directive which tried to eradicate the differences whose undesirable effects seemed to be the most serious. Being mainly technical in character, these proposals would have led to amendments of varying extent in the national procedural laws concerned. In the light of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which "communitarises" civil judicial cooperation, the Commission has recently addressed a Communication to the Council and the Parliament which outlines a certain number of "avenues to be explored for an improvement in the administration of justice in the European Union". The matters particularly addressed are the wider use and harmonisation of summary procedures for the payment of money, the availability for all individuals of a comparable armoury of procedures in relation to the availability of information about a debtor's assets, and the harmonisation of the rules on garnishment of bank accounts. The first two issues are directly inspired by the proposals made by the Storme Working Group. At the same time, several paths have opened up which are relevant to the international aspects of litigation. The are all intended to remove the undersirable effects which the remaining vestiges of national borders produce. This applies to the Brussels Convention of 26 May 1997, relating to the service of documents between EU Member States, and to the search for provisions adapted to facilitate the free movement and enforcement of judgments (simplification of the procedure for exequatur, creation of a "European enforceable instrument"), passing by way of the organisation of an exchange of information between the enforcement authorities in the various Member States to avoid the possibility that a clever exploitation of national borders may permit debtors evade pursuit by their creditors. To these must be added the draft directive on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests. The entities entitled to defend the consumers' interests in one Member State should also have the legal capacity to do so beyond their national borders when the occasion arises.

Jurisdiction in International Intellectual Property Litigation: The Courts Start Struggling with the Brussels Convention

Jurisdiction in International Intellectual Property Litigation: The Courts Start Struggling with the Brussels Convention

Cross-border injunctions

Whenever a bundle of national protective rights is infringed in different countries, the owner has the burden of suing the imitator in each country separately. This can make enforcement of such rights very difficult and expensive unless the parties agree to be bound by the decision of the courts of one particular jurisdiction. The increasing internationalization of protective rights in the form of the European Patent (where a bundle of national patents results from the European grant) and the EC-Trademark, in addition to the existing Benelux Trademark, Copyright, etc., increases the importance of so-called 'cross-border injunctions' granted under the Brussels Convention (for EC countries) and under a parallel Convention, the Lugano Convention (for EFTA countries). Such injunctions can be granted by a court of a member state and also are effective in other member states. Of course, this makes enforcement of protective rights much easier and cheaper. Nevertheless, although cross-border injunctions are widel...

Jurisdiction in International Intellectual Property Litigation: The Courts Start Struggling with the Brussels Convention

Jurisdiction in International Intellectual Property Litigation: The Courts Start Struggling with the Brussels Convention

Two European Conflicts Conventions

The states of the European Union have so far concluded two major conflict of laws conventions: The Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, and the Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations. Professor Juenger here reflects on the creation and experience of these treaties and concludes that the Brussels/Lugano Conventions present a model for the world while the Rome Convention shows what to avoid.

The Brussels Convention

Journal Article The Brussels Convention Get access Edwin Peel Edwin Peel Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Yearbook of European Law, Volume 18, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 689–705, https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/18.1.689 Published: 01 November 1998

Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments on the Existence and Validity of an Arbitration Clause under the Brussels Convention

THE BRUSSELS Convention of 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (‘Brussels Convention’) is based on Article 220 of the Treaty of Rome, which calls the Member States of the European Economic Community (‘EEC’) to enter into negotiations with each other for the ‘simplification of formalities governing the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments of courts or tribunals and of arbitration awards’. The Brussels Convention excludes arbitration from its subject matter. This conclusion is evidenced at Article 1(2)(4) of the Brussels Convention, which states that ‘the Convention shall not apply to: … (4) arbitration’. In retaining this exclusion, the Committee of Experts which prepared the Brussels Convention explained that: > There are many international agreements on arbitration. Arbitration is, of course, referred to in Article 220 of the Treaty of Rome. Moreover, the Council of Europe has prepared a European Convention providing a uniform law on arbitration, and this will probably be accompanied by a Protocol which will facilitate the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards to an even greater extent than the New York Convention.1 The Accession Conventions, negotiated between the Contracting States and the new Member States of the EEC in compliance with Articles 63 of the Brussels Convention and 220 of the Treaty of Rome, contain the same exclusion of arbitration. For example, the report on the Greek Accession Convention declares: ‘Arbitration, a form of proceedings encountered in civil, and in particular, commercial matters is excluded because of the existence of numerous multilateral international agreements in this area.’2 The issue of whether the Brussels Convention would apply to proceedings concerning the existence and validity of an arbitration clause and to the judgments rendered thereon arose during the preparation of the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the …

THE CONTRACTUAL ROLE OF BILLS OF LADING UNDER GREEK LAW

Although Greece is not a party to the Brussels Convention of 1924 on bills of lading (Hague Rules) major part of its substantive provisions has been incorporated in title 6 of the Code of Private Maritime Law which was introduced by Law 3816 in 1958. The Hague and Hague‐Visby Rules become recently part of the Greek law by law 2107/1992. The contract of carriage of goods by sea is regarded as a kind of the general contract of affreightment (charter‐parties). Scholars have clearly expressed in favour of the regulation of both kinds of contracts under the same provisions. So the former (contract of carriage) is governed by the same provisions as the latter (charter party)

Political Integration and Procedural Convergence in the European Union

I would like to both congratulate the NYU Law School for organizing this Conference in Villa La Pietra, Florence and thank the School for extending to me this invitation to participate. I am also grateful to the eminent colleagues for providing us, in the past three days, with such distinguished contributions as to the modern function and the future fate of civil procedure, coming as it were from both within and outside the traditional procedural field. The mission entrusted to me comes under the majestic denomination of 'Procedural harmonization in Europe'. Twenty years ago this subject would have never been on the agenda of a conference. Procedural harmonization across national borders was neither relevant nor feasible; and Europe as such, representing either a geographical or a political area, would not have added any meaningful parameter to the discussion. But then two things of major importance happened: the first was the development of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities under the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters; the second event was the adoption of the 1987 Single European Act which, among other things, inserted Article lOOa to the Treaty on the European Union, under Part Three, Title V, Chapter 3 on 'Approximation of Laws'. They both had a profound impact on procedural harmonization in Europe. However, before dealing in more detail with these manifestations of the new trend, one cannot ignore the impressive influence exercised on the common laws of Europe by the case-law of the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights under Article 6 of the 1950 Rome Convention on the safeguard of human rights and fundamental liberties, which considers the fair administration of justice as an enforceable right of any citizen against the state in its capacity as a dispenser of judicial protection and asks, in the first place, the European Court of Human Rights to specify and develop this

Note on the Application to Gibraltar of the 1968 Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters

Note on the Application to Gibraltar of the 1968 Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters

Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitration Awards and the Brussels Convention

THIS ARTICLE is divided into six sections. The first section deals with the two reasons for excluding the enforcement of awards from the scope of the Brussels Convention. The second section examines the international effects of a formal order of a court giving an award executory force. The third section deals with the enforcement and recognition of foreign judgments entered on awards. The fourth section concerns the suspension of the enforcement of an award and the revocation of a judgment ordering the enforcement of an award. The fifth section examines the appeal of an award, the sixth section deals with the setting aside of an award. The ensuing discussion is based principally on the law of the Member States of the European Union (and of other States when this is of practical relevance). Both textual and policy arguments exclude arbitral awards from the scope of Title III of the Brussels Convention on Recognition and Enforcement. On its face, the title of the Brussels Convention ‘on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters’ excludes the enforcement of awards. The issue turns on the word ‘judgment’ in Article 25: > For the purposes of this Convention, ‘judgment’ means any judgment given by a court or tribunal of a Contracting State, whatever the judgment may be called, including a decree, order decision or writ of execution, as well as the determination of costs or expenses by an officer of the court. The definition of judgment for recognition and enforcement purposes provided in Article 25 of the Convention embraces decisions that correspond to the requirements of the Convention irrespective of what they are called in the legislation of the Contracting States.1 The broad meaning given to the concept of ‘judgment’ in Article 25 is consistent with the Brussels Convention's aim …

Cross-border water pollution: two paradigmatic Dutch cases

Trans-boundary water pollution disputes before civil courts raise complex questions of substantive tort law, of standing for public interest groups and of private international law. As for the international jurisdiction of Dutch courts with respect to most European-based defendants, the EC 1968 Brussels Convention applies. This instrument provides for competence of the Dutch courts at the place(s) where the harmful event has occurred (the forum delicti). To date, the European Court of Justice has not yet decided whether the forum delicti also applies in situations of threatened wrong. Regarding Dutch substantive tort law, the applicable law in the two dispute this article focuses on, Dutch-based environmental protection groups have successfully sued foreign defendants on the basis of breach of statutory duty, whereas they are facing judicial reluctance when suing on the basis of breach of unwritten law.

The Special Status of Consumer and Employment Contracts in the Brussels Convention

The Special Status of Consumer and Employment Contracts in the Brussels Convention

The Impact of the Applicable Law Of Contract on the Law of Jurisdiction under the European Conventions

The Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, agreed in Brussels on 27 September 1968 (and generally referred to as the Brussels Convention), has been part of English law since the coming into force of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.1 The Convention now dominates the law of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters as well as the law governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

Jurisprudence recente de la Cour en matiere de conflits de competence judiciaire et d'execution des decisions

The rules on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgment, contained in the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters, form part of the Community legal order because the Court of Justice of the European Communities has been given competence to ensure a uniform interpretation of this text. This article therefore reviews recent developments in the case law of the Court on this subject. The author first of all discusses the interpretation given in relation to the scope of application of the Convention, both from the point of view of defining the concept of 'civil and commercial matters' and also as concerns the international scope of application of the text. He then considers the decisions which relate to the rules of special jurisdiction provided in the Convention, which concesn the determination of the place of performance of a contractual obligation, the place where a branch is established and the place where the harmful event occurred as well as the definition of a counterclaim, since a defendant may be sued in a court which is seised of such a claim. Finally, the author analyses two recent decisions, one of which elaborates on the notion of pending actions within the meaning of the Convention, while the other deals with the question whether a judicial settlement must be considered, for the purposes of the Convention, as forming an obstacle to the enforcement of decisions handed down in another Contracting State.

Defamation Under The Brussels Convention: A Forum Shopper's Charter?

Defamation Under The Brussels Convention: A Forum Shopper's Charter?

Forum Non Conveniensin Europe

Various authors have drawn attention to the fact that a new European law of civil procedure is in the process of being created. The kernel of this new law is the 1968 Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. Further areas of law are in part harmonised by the 1965 Hague Service Convention and the 1970 Hague Evidence Convention. While a certain set of “core” European rules has been established, there remains a penumbra: an area within which it is unclear how far traditional national rules may retain a role.

Jurisdiction in Matters Relating to a Contract under the Brussels Convention

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.