No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Plus ça Change? Article 5(1) of the Regulation on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2017
Extract
In October 2000 the Commission of the European Community presented an amended proposal of the Council’s new Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. This Regulation proposes considerable changes to the Brussels Convention. Article 5(1) has been one of the most frequently used and often litigated provisions of the Brussels Convention. Academic criticism of it in England has occasionally been forceful. Article 5(1) has not escaped the reforming zeal of the Commission and it is interesting to reflect on the new Regulation.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2000
References
1 Council Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (EC) No 44/2001, OJ 2001 L 12/1. This will come into force in all Member States apart from Denmark on 1 March 2002 (Art. 76).
2 See, in particular, Hill, “Jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract under the Brussels convention” 44 (1995) ICLQ 591 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, see generally Dicey, & Morris, The Conflict of Laws 13th edn. (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2000)Google Scholar Rule 28(2), Cheshire, & North, , Private International Law 13th edn. (London, Butterworths, 1999)Google Scholar Ch. 11.
3 This article will not consider the question of the application of Art. 5(1) to contracts completed over the internet. This problem is both specific to such contracts and part of the wider question of the proper regulation of the internet.
4 See, for example, Jenard Report, OJ 1979 C 59, 22–24; and Case C-34/82 Martin Peters Bauunternehmung GmbH. v. Zuid Nederlandse Aannemers Vereniging [1983] ECR 987,1002, para 11; Case C-288/92 Custom Made Commercial v. Stawa Metallbau GmbH [1994] ECR I-2913.
5 Case C-288/92 Custom Made Commercial, above n 4.
6 Aiglon v. Gau Shan [1993] 1 LLR 164, Boss Group v. Boss Group France [1997] 1 WLR 351.
7 Case C-38/81 Effer SpA v. Kantner [1982] ECR 825.
8 Boss Group above n 6.
9 Above n 7.
10 Case C-9/87 Arcado Sprl v. Haviland [1988] ECR 1583.
11 Case C-26/91 Soc. Jacob Handle et Cie GmbH v. TCMS [1992] ECR I-3967.
12 Case C-51/97 [1998] ECR I-6511.
13 This question was impliedly referred to the national law in Réunion Européenne, above n 12 at para. 18.
14 Case C-14/76 [1976] ECR 1497.
15 Case C-266/85 [1987] ECR 239.
16 Ibid.
17 [1992] 1 WLR 15. Notwithstanding their Lordships’ unconvincing argument that the giv ing of notice was the primary obligation, see below.
18 AIG Europe (UK) Ltd v. The Ethniki [2000] 2 All ER 566.
19 Boss Group, above n 6.
20 Seaconsar Far East Ltd v. Bank Markazi [1994] 1 AC 438.
21 Above n 17.
22 Case C-133/81 Ivenel v. Schwab [1982] ECR 1891.
23 [1999] QB 548.
24 Above n 6.
25 Ibid, at 357.
26 Case C-420/97 [1999] ECR I-6747.
27 Case C-106/95 Mainschiffarts Genossenschaft eG v. Les Gravières Rhénanes Sarl [1997] QB 731.
28 Case C-12/76 Industrie Tessili Italiana Como v. Dunlop AG [1976] ECR 1473. These choice of law rules are contained in the 1980 Rome Convention on the Choice of Law in Contractual Obligations. In England the Rome Convention is enacted in the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990.
29 [1990] 2 LLR 112.
30 After Case C–420/97 Leathertex (above n 26) these two claims might have to be separated and only the one to be performed in England could be determined in the English court.
31 See Preamble to the Brussels Convention, para. 2.
31 [1999] 1 AC 153. This was not a case on the Brussels Convention but on the same wording in the Act allocating jurisdiction between England and Wales, and Scotland.
33 Cheshire & North, above n 2 at 202 (footnote 19) and writers there cited.
34 Above n 7.
35 Case C-189/87 [1988] ECR 5565 para 17 and Case C-51/97 Réunion Européenne, above n 12.
36 As the majority opinion in the House of Lords in Kleinwort Benson correctly identified. But compare the criticism of their approach in Cheshire 8c North, above n 2 at 213 (footnote 15) and writers there cited.
37 [2000] 2 WLR 497.
38 The power of national courts to decline to hear cases on these procedural grounds was preserved in Case C-365/88 Kongress Agentur Hagen GmbH v. Zeehage BV [1990] ECR I-1845.
39 Above n 4.
40 Case C-440/97 [1999] ECR I-6307, para. 23.
41 Recital 11.
42 Particularly Art. 4, compare The Bank ofBaroda v. The Vysya Bank Ltd. [1994] 2 Lloyds Rep 87 and Société Nouvelle des Papeteries de L’Aa v. Machinefabriek BOA 25 September NJ (1992) No 750 RvdW (1992) No 207. See generally, Collins, “Contractual and non-contractual obligations—EEC preliminary convention” 25 (1976) ICLQ 35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Nygh 251 (1995) Hague Recueil 269 at 332–4, Dicey & Morris, above n 2 at 1236–41, Hill, , International Commercial Disputes 2nd edn. (London, LLP, 1997) 450 Google Scholar et seq., North, Contract Conflicts (Dordrecht, North-Holland, 1982).
43 See Boss Group, above n 6.
44 See the criticism of the European Court of Justice’s decision in Case C–406/92 Owners of cargo lately laden on board the ship Tatry v. Owners of the ship Maciej Rataj [1994] ECR I-5439 in Cheshire & North, above n 2 at 252 (footnote 16) and writers there cited; and chapter 5 of Hertz, Ketilbjørn, Jurisdiction in Contract and Tort under the Brussels Convention (Copenhagen, DJØF Publishing, 1999)Google Scholar.
45 [2000] 1 LLR 348.
46 Above n 27.
47 Above n 4.
48 Above n 27.
49 Above n 18.
50 [2000] 2 All ER 566, 572.
51 [2000] ILPR 505.
52 [2000] ILPR 455.
53 [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 945.
54 [1999] 1 WLR 1305.
55 Case C-189/87 Kalfelis, above n 35.
56 Case C-26/91 Soc. Jacob Handte et Cie GmbH, above n 11.
57 [1998] QB 54.
58 The court also held that on the facts Art. 5(3) was inapplicable.
59 Above n 26.
60 Arts. 27 and 28 in the new Regulation.
61 Art. 6(3) of Brussels Convention and the new Regulation.
62 This may be achieved by the submission of the defendant of those other claims to the jurisdiction of the other court. However, whether this submission is effective will depend on the domestic procedural law ofthat other court.
63 Case C-266/85 Shenauai v. Kreischer [1987] ECR 239.
64 [1992] 1 WLR 15.
65 Above n 57.
66 Above n 26.
67 Case C-68/93 [1995] ECR 1-415.
68 The Abidin Daver [1984] AC 398 and cases following it.
69 Case C-288/92 Custom Made Commercial, above n 4.
70 CPR Rule 3.4(2) provides:
“The Court may strike out a statement of case it it appears to the court—
-
(a)
(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim;
-
(b)
(b) that the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process, or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or
-
(c)
(c) that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction, or court order. “
71 Case C-365/88 Kongress Agentur Hagen GmbH v. Zeehage BV [1990] ECR I-1845.
72 Boss Group, above n 6.
73 Case C-440/97 GIE Groupe Concorde, above n 40; Case C-125/92 Mulox IBC Ltd. v. Geels [1993] ECR 1-4075, para. 11 the European Court of Justice said that the aim of these rules of jurisdiction is to allow “the plaintiff easily to identify the court before which he may bring an action and the defendant reasonably to foresee the court before which he may be sued”.
74 Above n 1, Recital 11.
75 See for example, Case C-385/95 Rutten v. Cross Medical [1997] ECR I-57 and the 1989 Accession Convention.
76 Art. 27, corresponding to Art. 21 of the Brussels Convention.