No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 April 2021
On September 3, 2020, following a request from the Dutch Supreme Court, the First Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its preliminary ruling in Supreme Site Services and Others v. SHAPE on the interpretation of Articles 1(1) and 24(5) of the European Union (EU) Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast Brussels Regulation).
1 Case C-186/19, Supreme Site Services and Others v. SHAPE, ECLI:EU:C:2020:638 (Sept. 3, 2020) [hereinafter Judgment].
2 Regulation 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the European Council of Dec. 12, 2012, on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, 2012 O.J. (L 351) 1-32 [hereinafter Recast Brussels Regulation].
3 The Dutch Supreme Court referred a total of three questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling (see Judgment, ¶ 34).
4 Judgment, ¶ 62.
5 Id. ¶ 63.
6 Nancy Perkins & Sally Pei, Introductory Note to Jam v. International Finance Corp. (U.S. Sup. Ct.), 58 I.L.M. 646 (2019). See also Jam v. International Finance Corp., 139 S. Ct. 759 (2019).
7 Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters Set Up Pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty, art. XI(2) (“No measure of execution or measure directed to the seizure or attachment of its property or funds shall be taken against any Allied Headquarters, except for the purposes of paragraph 6 a. of Article VII and Article XIII of the Agreement.”).
8 Judgment, ¶ 23.
9 Id. ¶ 25.
10 Id. ¶ 26.
11 The author notes that the Belgian courts have already authorized the enforcement of the second decision of the Dutch Limburg District Court and of the decision of the Dutch's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal lifting the garnishee order. Further, the interim garnishee order levied by the Supreme companies on the escrow account has already been the subject of an order to lift it. Nevertheless, the Dutch Supreme Court took the view that the Supreme companies still had an interest in pursuing the case since the second decision of the Dutch Limburg District Court not only authorized the lifting of the interim garnishee order, but also prohibited the Supreme companies from levying such a measure again on the escrow account. Id. ¶ 29.
12 Recast Brussels Regulation, art. 24(5) (“The following courts of a Member State shall have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of the domicile of the parties: … (5) in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the Member State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced.”)
13 Judgment, ¶ 30.
14 Id.
15 Recast Brussels Regulation, art. 1(1). (“This Regulation shall apply in civil and commercial matters whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. It shall not extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters or to the liability of the State for acts and omissions in the exercise of State authority (acta iure imperii).”)
16 Judgment, ¶ 31.
17 Id. ¶ 62.
18 Id. ¶¶ 59–60.
19 Case C—641/18, LG v. Rina SpA and Ente Registro Italiano Navale, EU:C:2020:349 (May 7, 2020), ¶ 56.
20 Id. ¶ 58.
21 Judgment, ¶ 61.
22 Id.
23 Id. ¶ 63.
24 Id. ¶ 66.
25 Id. ¶ 65.
26 Id. ¶ 61.
27 Perkins & Pei, supra note 6.