1. The literature on the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Convention is extensive. Among the handbooks the following may be mentioned: Droz, G.A.L., Compétence judiciaire et effets des jugements dans le Marché Commun (1972)Google Scholar; Kaye, P., Civil Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (1987)Google Scholar; Kropholler, J., Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht: Kommentar zum EuGVÜ, 2., neubearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage (1987)Google Scholar; O'Malley, S. and Layton, A., European Civil Practice (1989)Google Scholar and Verheul, J.P., Rechtsmacht in het Nederlandse Internationaal Privaatrecht, deel 1, het EEG Bevoegdheid- en Executieverdrag (1982)Google Scholar.

The following loose-leaf commentaries should be mentioned: A. Bülow and K.H. Böckstiegel, Der Internationale Rechtsverkehr in Zivil- und Handelssachen, and P. Vlas, Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering, Verdragen. Het Europees Jurisdictie- en Executieverdrag.

2. Trb. (Tractatenblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden) 1957 No. 91.

3. Arts. 2 and 3 EEC Treaty.

4. More precisely formulated: free movement of goods, based on a customs union, free movement of workers, the freedom to exercise a trade or profession and free movement of payments and capital. See Kapteyn, P.J.G. and van Themaat, P. VerLoren, Introduction to the Law of the European Communities after the Coming into Force of the Single European Act, Gormley, L.W., ed., 2nd edn. (1990) Chapter VIIGoogle Scholar.

5. See the Preamble to the EEC Treaty. On the concept ‘common market’ see Kapteyn and VerLoren van Themaat, op. cit. n. 4, Chapter III, para. 3.4, and also the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in case 15/81, Schul v. Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen [1982] ECR 1409 at 1431 and 1432, para. 33: ‘… The concept of a common market as defined by the Court in a consistent line of decisions involves the elimination of all obstacles to intra-Community trade in order to merge the national markets into a single market bringing about conditions as close as possible to those of a genuine internal market.’

6. C.f., in particular, Kapteyn and VerLoren van Themaat, op. cit. n. 4, Chapter VIII, para. 1.5.

7. OJ 1978, L304, p. 36.

8. See, in respect of the German unification; Mansel, H.-P., ‘Perspektiven eines deutschen interlokalen Privat- und Verfahrensrecht nach der Wiedervereinigung’, IPRax (1990) p. 283 et seq., and the literature referred to (fn. 1)Google Scholar.

9. For the Netherlands: European territory of the Kingdom and Aruba.

10. OJ 1978, L 304, p. 50.

11. And to the ECSC and Euratom Treaties.

12. C.f., Kapteyn and VerLoren van Themaat, op. cit. n. 4, Chapter II, para. 2.

13. Ibid.

14. C.f., I.E. Schwartz, ‘Commentary on Art. 220 EEC Treaty’, in Handbuch des Europäischen Rechts (vormals Handbuch fur Europäischen Rechts), I A 71, Rn. 33 et seq. See also: Timmermans, C.W.A., Erkenning van vreemde vennootschappen en rechtspersonen, preadvies voor de NIVR, no. 81 (1980) Chapter II, para. 4, no. 17Google Scholar. In the present writer's view it is arguable that the retention by Member States of their disparate rules on recognition and the enforcement of judgments, as a result of which the realisation of the Common Market is jeopardised, is incompatible with the principle that all Member States are bound to take all measures necessary for the fulfilment of the objectives of the Community (Art. 5 EEC Treaty). See also Kapteyn and VerLoren van Themaat, op. cit. n. 4, Chapter III, para. 5.2.

15. Timmermans, op. cit. n. 14, who rightly describes Art. 220 EEC Treaty as a cobbled provision.

16. C.f., Kapteyn and VerLoren van Themaat, op. cit. n. 4, Chapter II, para. 1.2. See also Volken, P., ‘Das EG/EFTA–Parallel–Übereinkommen iiber die gerichtliche Zuständigkeit und die Vollstreckung gerichtlicher Entscheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen’, in Schw. Jb. int. R. (1987) para. 4Google Scholar. See also the overview of Art. 220 EEC Treaty by Leenen, A.Th.S., Gemeenschapsrecht en volkenrecht (1984) p. 250 et. seqGoogle Scholar.

17. C.f., Report on the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (signed at Brussels, 27 September 1968), by P. Jenard, OJ 1979, C 59, p.1, Chapter X.

18. C.f., Report on the Convention on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and to the Protocol on its interpretation by the Court of Justice (signed at Luxembourg, 9 October 1978), by P. Schlosser, OJ 1979, C 59, p. 71, para. 2.

19. OJ 1978, L 304, p. 1.

20. OJ 1982, L 388, p. 1.

21. OJ 1989, L 285, p. 1.

22. Report on the Convention on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic to the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and to the Protocol on its interpretation by the Court of Justice with the adjustments made to them by the Convention on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the adjustments made to them by the Convention on the accession of the Hellenic Republic (signed at Donostia/San Sebastián on 26 May 1989), by M. de Almeida Cruz, M. Desantes Real and P. Jenard, OJ 1990, C 189, p. 35.

23. Austria has since sought, under Art. 237 EEC Treaty, membership of the EEC. Sweden is considering making a similar request.

24. Jenard-Moller (1988), para. 10.

25. For example, there is no enforcement convention between the two EFTA States of Norway and Switzerland; nor is there between Switzerland and the Netherlands. On the other hand, an enforcement convention has been concluded between France and Switzerland (c.f., Art. 58 of the Brussels Convention).

26. C.f., Verheul, J.P. and Feteris, M.W.C., Rechtsmacht in het Nederlandse Internationaal Privaatrecht, Deel 2 (1986) V 4Google Scholar.

27. The domicile of the defendant is considered to be the first and natural basis for jurisdiction. This so-called forum ret rule cannot be justified by its intrinsic value: c.f., Verheul, J.P., ‘The Forum Actoris and International Law’, in: Essays on International and Comparative Law in Honour of Judge Erodes (1983) p. 201Google Scholar. See also CCA. Voskuil, De Internationale bevoegdheid van de Nederlandse rechter – in het bijzonder in zaken van echtscheiding en alimentatie, dissertation (1962) Chapter 1, para. 4.

28. Jenard-Moller (1988), para. 11.

29. C.f., inter alia, CML Rev. (1989) p. 341 et seq. (Editorial Comments). See, on the realisation of the internal market in 1992, in particular, Art. 13 et seq. of the European Single Act, which entered into force on 1 July 1987 (Bull. EG, Suppl. 2/86; Trb. 1986 No. 63; Stb. 1986 No. 634). See, on the relationship between the EEC and EFTA, Jamar, J. and Wallace, H., eds., EEC-EFTA More than Just Good Friends? (1988) and the Special Issue of the Journal of Common Market Studies (06 1990) p. 299 et seqGoogle Scholar.

30. A striking feature of the Brussels Convention is that the Convention has created a disjunction between the rules on jurisdiction and the rules on recognition and enforcement of judgments. In principle, the jurisdiction of the court of the State in which the judgment was given may not be reviewed (Art. 28 para. 3). All judgments falling within the scope of the Convention are to be recognized and enforced, even if the court of the State of origin had erroneously assumed jurisdiction. Review of jurisdiction is also prohibited if the court of the State of origin has based its jurisdiction upon a rule of internal law relating to jurisdiction. Under the Brussels Convention the jurisdiction rules of the Convention give way to the internal jurisdiction rules of the State of the court addressed if the defendant is not domiciled within the territory of one of the Contracting States. C.f., inter alia, Pellis, L.Th.L.G., ‘Het Parallel-Verdrag (EVEX): geen reden tot Euforie’, NJB (1989) p. 78 et seqGoogle Scholar. (hereafter referred to as 1989–1) and Pellis, L.Th.L.G., ‘Rechtsunificatie of rechtsimitatie?’, NJB (1989) p. 749 et seqGoogle Scholar. (hereafter referred to as 1989–11), and Strikwerda, L., Inleiding tot het Nederlandse Internationaal Privaatrecht, 2nd edn. (1990) para. 279Google Scholar.

31. See also Nadelmann, K.H., ‘The Outer World and the Common Market Experts' Draft of a Convention on Recognition of Judgments’, CML Rev. (1967–1968) p. 409 et seqGoogle Scholar. (‘… Article 59 has complicated matters by creating the impression that pressure tactics are intended’, p. 418), and Kerr, M., 'The EEC Judgments Convention: Some Repercussions Beyond the EEC, EuR (1980) p. 353 et seqGoogle Scholar.

32. See Arts. 767 jo 764 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering) and, inter alia, Hoge Raad 12–5–1916, NJ 1916, p. 728, WPNR 2440 (EMM): Colette v. Pastoors. The jurisdiction of the forum arresti to hear the principal claim is a ground of jurisdiction created by case-law.

33. For an overview see, in particular, O'Malley, and Layton, , op. cit. n. 1, 33.29–33.32Google Scholar.

34. Since the Brussels Convention contained a number of principles which could serve to strengthen judicial and economic co-operation (Jenard-Moller (1988), para. 10), this Convention was taken as a starting-point for creating a system for the recognition and enforcement of judgments which is uniform throughout most of Western Europe. C.f., para. 5, p. 2 of the Consultative Paper, Lord Chancellor's Department, London.

35. Jenard-Möller (1988), para. 11. See also section 1 of this article.

36. Droz, G.A.L., ‘La Convention de Lugano parallèle à la Convention de Bruxelles concernant la compétence judiciaire et l'exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale’, Rev. crit. dr. internat. privé (1989) p. 1 et seq.Google Scholar, para. 4, notes, however, that the negotiations in respect of the proposed new enforcement convention were conducted as if the parties were concerned with an accession or adjustment convention: ‘…D'une part, ilfallait que la convention parallèle suive le plus fidèlement possible la Convention de Bruxelles de manière à ce que sinon en droit du moins en fait le risultat de I'operation apparaisse comme une sorte d'adhésiom à une texte préexistant.’ See further section 1 supra.

37. Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Iceland, Sweden and Switzerland. Finland and the Netherlands have also since signed. OJ 1988, L 319, p. 9.

38. C.f., for an extensive discussion of this matter, Fawcett, J., ‘The Lugano Convention’, EL Rev. (1989) p. 105 et seq.Google Scholar, and Pellis, L.Th.L.G. (1989–1991), loc. cit. n. 30, p. 78 et seqGoogle Scholar.

39. C.f., in this context, Council of the European Communities, the Secretary-General, 8045/88 (Presse 129), p. 2. A recent example of the intention to strenghten co-operation between the EEC and EFTA ic the Resolution of the European Parliament in OJ 1990, C 15, p. 336.

40. Report on the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, done at Lugano on 16 September 1988, by P. Jenard and G. Möller, OJ 1990, C 189, p. 57 et seq.

41. In addition to the forum rei rule of Art. 2 of the Convention.

42. See, inter alia, case 12/76, Tessili v. Dunlop [1976] ECR 1473, 23 NILR (1976) p. 349, and case 14/76, De Bloos v. Bouyer [1976] ECR 1497, 23 NILR (1976) p. 351.

43. C.f., Art. 6 of the Rome Convention on the Law Applicable on Contractual Obligations, OJ 1980, L 266, p. 1. The explanatory report on the Convention has been written by M. Giulano and P. Lagarde, OJ 1980, C 282. The choice of law rules embodied in the Convention are universally applicable. Art. 6 derogates, as lex specialis, from Arts. 3 and 4 of the Convention.

See, however, inter alia, the critical remarks by Jayme, E. and Kohler, C. (IPRax (1989) p. 337 et seq.) to the decision of the Court of Justice in case 32/88, Six Constructions v. Humbert [1989] ECR 341Google Scholar.

44. See case 133/81, Ivenel v. Schwab [1982] ECR 1891, 30 NILR (1983) p. 245, and case 266/85, Shenavai v. Kreischer [1987] ECR 239. See also Jenard-Moller (1988), para. 36 et seq. According to H.U. Jessurun d'Oliveira the characteristic performance principle in practice favours the stronger parties, such as employers (Preadvies NVIR (1975) p. 109). See also his critical note to the Ivenel v. Schwab decision, Ars Aequi (1982) p. 598 et seq., in which he rightly remarks that Art. 6 of the Contracts Convention does not presuppose a characteristic obligation.

45. C.f. the third paragraph in infra section 5 of this article.

46. Case 32/88, supra n. 43. An overview of the facts and the ruling, with commentary, is given by P. Vlas in TVVS (1990) pp. 180–183. The ruling is discussed in, inter alia, IPRax (1990) p. 152 et seq. (Th. Rauscher), and in Rev. cr. dr. internat. privé (1989) p. 555 et seq. (P. Rodière).

47. Supra n. 44.

48. Para. 14. In this case the employee had worked, successively, in Libya, Zaire and Abu-Dhabi.

49. Almeida Cruz (1989), para. 23. The reservation made by Switzerland in Article la (Art. Ibis in the French version) of Protocol No. 1 to the Lugano Convention does not apply to employment contracts: c.f., Jenard-Mö11er(1988), para. 101.

50. Case 241/83, [1985] ECR 99.

51. C.f., Jenard (1978), Chapter IV-B, Part 5, and Schlosser (1982), para. 164. From both reports it can be inferred that claims for payment of rent in respect of holiday homes do not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction conferred by Art. 16(1) of the Brussels Convention.

52. In this case the Court, furthermore, held that disputes which are only indirectly related to the use of the property let, such as those concerning the loss of holiday enjoyment and travel expenses, do not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction conferred by Art. 16(1) of the Brussels Convention. This means that the tenant will be obliged to split his claim and apply to different courts.

53. NJ 1986, 208.

54. Almeida Cruz (1989), para. 25.

55. Jenard-Möller (1988), para. 53.

56. See, inter alia, Volken, loc. cit. n. 16, para. 19.

57. See, in particular, Art. 7 of the Contracts Convention (OJ 1980, L 266).

58. Pursuant to Art. 65 of the Lugano Convention the three Protocols form an integral part of the Convention. See also n. 49 supra.

59. C.f., the second paragraph in section 1 supra, and Almeida Cruz (1989), para. 25.

60. Collective employment agreements are not within Art. 17, fifth paragraph, nor within Art. 5(1), lines 2 and 3. C.f., Jenard-Moller (1988), para. 60, and Almeida Cruz (1989), para. 27.

61. See, in particular, Strikwerda, L., ‘Internationale forumkeuze en het formele toepassingsgebied van het EEX’, in Offerhauskring 1962–1987 (1987) p. 197 et seqGoogle Scholar. In this essay the writer examines which agreements on jurisdiction fall within the Dutch internal rules and which are covered by the Brussels Convention.

62. Jenard-Moller (1988), para. 60. On Art. 17, fifth paragraph, see, in particular, Droz, loc. cit. n. 36.

63. Almeida Cruz (1989), para. 27.

64. See paras. I-b and Il-b in section 3.1 supra.

65. As well as for the sake of protecting legal security. Almeida Cruz (1989), para. 27.

66. C.f., Jenard-Möller (1988), para. 73, and Almeida Cruz (1989), para. 30.

67. Jenard-Möller (1988), paras. 46 and 47.

68. Jenard-Möller (1988), para. 55 et seq., and Almeida Cruz (1989), para. 26.

69. C.f. the remarks by Jenard-Möller (1988), para. 39. See also Jenard (1968), Chapter IV B, Part 6, and Strikwerda, loc. cit. n. 61, p. 207 et seq.

One could think of a situation in which both the employee and the employer are domiciled in the Netherlands but the employee habitually carries out his work in Germany. In this case the agreement conferring jurisdiction to a Dutch court infringes the jurisdiction of the German court based upon the obligation which characterizes employment contracts (Art. 5(1), line 2).

70. See, on Art. 21 of the Brussels Convention, Strikwerda, , op. cit. n. 30, para. 259, and Jenard (1968), Chapter IV B, Part 8. See also the French text of Art. 21 para. 1: ‘Lorsque des demandes ayant le même objet et la même cause sont formées entre les mêmes parties devant des juridictions d'États contractants differents, la juridiction saisie en second lieu doit, meme d'office, se dessaisir en faveur du tribunal premier saisi’Google Scholar.

71. Jenard-Möller (1988), para. 64, and Almeida Cruz (1989), para. 28.

72. Jenard-Möller (1988), para. 73, and Almeida Cruz (1989), para. 30. See also Droz, , op. cit. n. 1, p. 363 et seqGoogle Scholar.

73. This provision refers to the case in which proceedings have been introduced in both an EEC Member State and an EFTA Member State.

74. Jenard-Möller (1988), para. 15.

75. Jenard-Möller (1988), para. 16.

76. See the text and n. 30 supra.

77. C.f., Art. 25(2) of the 1978 Accession Convention (OJ 1978, L 304, p. 1.), laying down the authentic interpretation of Art. 57(1). In the interests of clarity it was thought preferable that Art. 25(2) should be reproduced as such in Art. 57(2) of the Lugano Convention.

78. Jenard-Möller (1988), para. 82. See also Protocol No. 3 to the Lugano Convention. An example of such a Community act is the proposal for a first Council Directive to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (submitted by the Commission to the Council on 25 November 1980), OJ 1980, C 351, p. 1. Art. 74 of this proposal contains its own jurisdiction rule. Special conventions can also contain (exorbitant) grounds of jurisdiction which differ from the jurisdiction rules laid down in the Lugano Convention.

79. Jenard-Möller (1988), para. 82.

80. In contrast to the case of a judgment delivered on the basis of a special convention by a court in a State which is not a Member of the EC.

81. Jenard-Möller (1988), para. 89.

82. Jenard-Möller (1988), para. 93.

83. Art. 61(3) (Lugano Convention) and Art. 62 (1989 Accession Convention).

84. At least, insofar as it concerns matters falling within the material scope of the Lugano Convention.

85. Art. 59 of the Swiss Federal Constitution states that:

‘1. For the purposes of personal claims a solvent debtor domiciled in Switzerland must be sued before the court of his domicile; his property may not therefore be seized or sequestrated outside the canton in which he is domiciled, in pursuance of personal claims.

2. In the case of foreign nationals this is without prejudice to the provisions of international treaties’.

86. Jenard-Möller (1988), paras. 99–109 (100–102).

87. Jenard-Möller (1988), paras. 110–119.

88. Jenard-Möller (1988), paras. 120–128.

89. See Pellis, (1989–1991), loc. cit. n. 30, p. 80Google Scholar.

90. See the recent article by G.A.L. Droz, ‘La Convention de San Sebastian alignant la Convention de Bruxelles sur la Convention de Lugano’, Rev. crit. dr. internat. privé (1990) p. 12.

91. Pellis, (1989–1991), loc. cit. n. 30, p. 78 et seq.Google Scholar, and Pellis, (1989–11), loc. cit. n. 30, p. 749 et seqGoogle Scholar.

92. Art. 28, third paragraph.

93. Jenard-Möller (1988), paras. 16 and 82; Volken, loc. cit. n. 16, paras. 28 and 44.

94. E. Jayme and C. Kohler, ‘Das Internationale Privat- und Verfahrensrecht der EG – Stand 1989’, IPRax (1989) p. 341.

95. Jenard-Möller (1988), paras. 16 and 82.

96. Verheul, J.P., Erkenning en tenuitvoerlegging van vreemde vonnissen (1989) II, 1 e.vGoogle Scholar. (see further Verheul, and Feteris, , op. cit. n. 26, V4Google Scholar, and also Annex 1 of the Lugano Convention).

97. As a result of which, it is submitted, the justification for the retention of Art. 54B(2) and (3) would become all the more elusive.

98. Thus, positive conflicts in respect of jurisdiction, under Art. 16(2), are possible. C.f., Strikwerda, , op. cit. n. 30, para 259Google Scholar. See also Kropholler, , op. cit. n. 1, p. 224Google Scholar. Moreover, the authors of the Lugano Convention have missed a chance to find a solution, by means of a special provision, for negative jurisdiction conflicts arising in connection with Art. 16(2). See in this context, particularly, Kropholler, , op. cit. n. 1, pp. 63 and 64Google Scholar.

99. Volken, P., ‘Das Lugano-Übereinkommen vom 16. September 1988 uber die gerichtliche Zuständigkeit und die Vollstreckung gerichtlicher Entscheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen’, Schw. Jb. int. R. (1988) p. 565Google Scholar.

100. The list in the second paragraph of Art. 3 is not exhaustive.

101. Jenard-Möller (1988), paras. 5 and 10.

102. C.f., in particular, Art. 7 EEC Treaty.

103. Jenard (1968), Chapter II C.

104. Jenard, P., ‘La Convention de Bruxelles sur la competence judiciaire et l'exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale’, Schw. Jb. int. R. (1987) p. 89 et seqGoogle Scholar.

105. As a variant of the idea, it could have been recently decided, with respect to a defendant domiciled within the territory of an EFTA State, to add a third paragraph to Art. 59 of the Brussels Convention under which judgments delivered on the basis of exorbitant grounds of jurisdiction will be denied any legal force within the territory in which the Brussels Convention applies. The plaintiff would then be obliged to apply again to the forum rei. Provided that certain ‘minimum’ requirements are fulfilled, a judgment given by such a forum will be recognized.

106. Of course, a better solution would be the abolition of all exorbitant jurisdiction rules.

107. See Pellis, (1989–1), loc. cit. n. 30, p. 79 et seq.Google Scholar, and Pellis, (1989–11), loc. cit. n. 30, p. 749 et seqGoogle Scholar. See also the recent article by Droz, , loc. cit. n. 90, p. 2Google Scholar.

108. The Preamble to Protocol No. 2 refers, inter alia, to a ‘substantial link’ between the two Conventions.

109. In anticipation of the entry into force of the Lugano Convention and its Protocols. In his note in respect of the Six Constructions ruling Vlas rightly asks whether the good intentions to achieve a uniform interpretation are not (or will not be) merely castles in the air; TVVS (1990) p. 183.

110. C.f., inter alia, case 26/62, Gend, Van and Loos, [1963] ECR 1Google Scholar.

111. Kapteyn, and Themaat, VerLoren van, op. cit. n. 4, Chapter II, para. 2.1Google Scholar.

112. Case 218/86, [1987] ECR 4905.

113. See the annotation to this decision by P. Vlas, in TVVS (1989) p. 182, who argues that the ruling is a step in the direction towards a European Company law. However, the decision fails to convince Vlas, because in his view, there should first be consensus about the underlying principles.

114. Case 12/76, Tessili v. Dunlop, supra n. 42.

115. The best long-term solution would seem to be that the Court of Justice should be expanded permanently by the addition of EFTA judges. The expanded Court should then handle cases arising under the Brussels Convention as well as under the Lugano Convention, and all internal Community law cases, etc This proposal links intimately with the Editorial Comments in CML Rev. (1989) p. 341 et seq. Volken, , loc cit. n. 16, para. 41Google Scholar, suggests that such an extension of the Court of Justice was, at the time that the Lugano Convention was being prepared, contemplated. In the interests of preserving the degree of uniformity which has been achieved, and in the light of the close economic relations between the EEC and EFTA, this author does not support the possibility of accession to the Lugano Convention by States not belonging to one of these organizations.