Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:37:16.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Protocol on Interpretation of the EEC Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments: over ten Years in Legal Practice (1975–1985)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

P. Vlas
Get access

Extract

The Protocol concerning the Interpretation by the EC Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968, on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in civil and commercial matters (hereinafter referred to as the Protocol on Interpretation) came into force on 1 September 1975 between the six original Member States of the EEC (i.e., Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany). On the basis of this Protocol the European Court of Justice can give preliminary rulings on the interpretation of the above-mentioned Convention, of the Protocol Annex to this Convention and also of the Protocol on Interpretation itself.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , May 1986 , pp. 84 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. 6 May 1980 (748/79) [1980] ECR 1517; and 26 May 1981, case 157/80 [1981] ECR 1391.

2. 9 November 1983 [1983] ECR 3639; and 28 March 1984 (56/84) [1984] ECR 1769.

3. See also the various commentaries by Droz, G.A.L., Compétence judiciaire el effets des jugements dans le marché commun (1972) nos. 692–718Google Scholar ; Th. Cathala, in Recueil Dalloz (1972) pp. 31–34Google Scholar ; Dumon, F. in SEW (1972) pp. 203–240Google Scholar ; Mok, M.R. in CMLR (1971) pp. 485–494Google Scholar ; Ras, H.E. in NJB (1975) pp. 1177–1186Google Scholar ; and Vlas, P., Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering, part V, p. 419 et seqGoogle Scholar .

4. See recently Chr. Kohler, , ‘Practical Experience of the Brussels Jurisdiction and Judgments Convention in the Six Original Contracting States’, ICLQ (1985) pp. 563–583Google Scholar .

5. A survey of ratification is given by Jayme, E. and Chr. Kohler, , ‘Zum Stand des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts der Europaischen Gemeinschaft’, IPRax (1985) p. 66Google Scholar .

6. See the decision of 9 November 1983 [1983] ECR 3639.

7. Jenard Report, Official Journal EC, 5 March 1979, No. C 59, p. 68; see also the comments of Dumon, W. in SEW (1972) p. 231Google Scholar and Ras, H.E. in NJB (1975) p. 1180Google Scholar, who prefer the more flexible system of Article 177 of the Treaty of Rome.

8. See Linke, H., ‘EG-Gerichtsstands- und Vollstreckungsiibereinkommen’, IPRax (1985) p. 1Google Scholar.

9. See the decision of 22 November 1977 (43/77) [1977] ECR 2175, NJ 1978, 338 note Schultsz, 25 NILR (1978) p. 90 note Verheul: here reference was made by the Antwerp Court of First Instance in respect of Article 38 of the Brussels Convention.

10. Jenard Report, supra, n. 7.

11. See also Dubbink, C.W., ‘Als vragen niet vrijstaat maar verplicht is’, in The Haardt Essays (1983) pp. 155–159Google Scholar; Kropholler, J., Europdisches Zivilprozessrecht (1983) para. 19Google Scholar.

12. 6 October 1982 (283/81) [1982] ECR 3415, NJ 1983, 55; Ars Aequi (1983) pp. 320–325 note Schermers.

13. See, for instance, the Hoge Raad 27 May 1983, NJ 1983, 561 note Schultsz, although Attorney-General Franx asked for a reference (p. 1785); see also Hoge Raad 11 05 1984, NJ 1984, 596Google Scholar.

14. See the EC Court of Justice's decision of 16 December 1980 (814/79)[1980] ECR 3807, NJ 1982, 97 note Schultsz, 28 NILR (1981) p. 68 note Verheul. Reference was made by the Hoge Raad on 14 12 1979, NJ 1982, 96 note SchultszGoogle Scholar.

15. [1963] ECR 63.

16. NJ 1982, 222 note Schultsz, 30 NILR (1983) p. 251 note Verheul.

17. Verheul mentions in his note, ibid., several obligations to perform embodied in the framework of a carriage contract.

18. See the EC Court of Justice's decision of 6 October 1976 (14/76) [1976] ECR 1497, NJ 1977, 170 note Schultsz, 23 NILR (1976) p. 351 note Verheul.

19. See the decision of 24 June 1981 (150/80) [1981] ECR 1671, NJ 1981, 546 note Schultsz, 30 NILR (1983) p. 256 note Verheul.

20. See the decisions of 22 October 1981 (27/81) [1981] ECR 2431, NJ 1982, 144; 31 March 1982 (25/81) [1982] ECR 1189, NJ 1982, 281 note Schultsz, 30 NILR (1983) p. 240 note Verheul; 14 July 1983 (201/82) [1983] ECR 2503, NJ 1984, 716 note Schulsz.

21. See Linke, , loc.cit., n.8, p. 1Google Scholar; du Pré, F.M., ‘dienen, van vraag en van antwoord’, Trema exclusief no. 8 (1984) p. 8Google Scholar.

22. Interesting comparative remarks are made by Verheul, J.P., ‘Jurisdiction to Grant Injunctions’, Hague-Zagreb Essays I (1976) p. 70 et seqGoogle Scholar.

23. EC Court of Justice 24 May 1977 (106/76) [1977] ECR 957, NJ 1977, 598.

24. See the Hoge Raad 15 01 1982, NJ 1982, 504Google Scholar and the EC Court of Justice 27 October 1982, (35 and 36/82) [1982] ECR 3723, NJ 1983, 350.

25. See also Dubbink, , loc.cit., n.11, pp. 157, 158Google Scholar.

26. Kropholler, op.cit., n.11, para. 19.

27. 26 May 1982 (133/81) [1982] ECR 1891, NJ 1983, 560 note Schultsz, 30 NILR (1983) p. 245 note Verheul.

28. See the decision of the EC Court cited at n. 18 supra.

29. Therefore rejecting ‘the characteristic performance’ as an obligation in the sense of Article 5(1). This interpretation was suggested among others by G.A.L. Droz in RCDIP (1976) p. 129 and also in his article, ‘L'interprétation par la Cour de Justice des Communautés des règies de compétence judiciaire européennes en matière de contrat’, Receuil Dalloz (1977) pp. 287–294.

30. See also the comments of Schultsz and Verheul cited at n. 27 supra; d'Oliveira, H.U. Jessurun in Ars Aequi (1982) pp. 598–605Google Scholar; Mezger, E., ‘Einheitlicher Gerichtsstand des Erfüllungsorts verschiedenartiger Anspriiche eines Handelsvertreters (Art. 5 Nr. 1 GVU)’, IPRax (1983) pp. 153–156Google Scholar.

31. Verheul, J.P., ‘The EEC Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments of 27 September 1968 in Dutch Legal Practice’, 30 NILR (1983) p. 251Google Scholar.

32. See Art. 95 of the Dutch Wet op de Rechterlijke Organisatie; Art. 1089 of the Belgian Gerechtelijk Wetboek; and Art. 17 of the French Act of 3 July 1967.

33. Act of 7 August 1972, Bundesgesetzblatt II 1972, 845.

34. Jenard Report, loc.cit., n.7.

35. See Official Journal EC, 28 December 1974, No. L350.

36. See, for instance, the following decisions of the EC Court of Justice: 6 October 1976 (12/76) [1976] ECR 1473; 14 October 1976 (29/76) [1976] ECR 1541; 21 June 1978 (150/77) [1978] ECR 1431; 22 February 1979 (133/78) [1979] ECR 733; 22 March 1983 (34/82) [1983] ECR 987; 15 November 1983 (288/82) [1983] ECR 3663.

37. (12/76) [1976] ECR 1473.

38. Linke, , loc.cit., n.8, p. 2Google Scholar.

39. See the Court's decision of 30 November 1976 (21/76) [1976] ECR 1735. See also the Hoge Raad 31 03 1978, NJ 1979, 418Google Scholar and as for the costs of preliminary proceedings according to Art. 177 of the EEC Treaty: Hoge Raad 21 02 1975, NJ 1975, 456Google Scholar and of the same date, NJ 1975, 457.

40. See the decision of 16 December 1980 (814/79) [1980] ECR 3807, NJ 1982, 97 note Schultsz.

41. Hoge Raad 26 06 1981, NJ 1982, 98 note SchultszGoogle Scholar.

42. See also Kohler, , loc.cit., n. 4, p. 565 et seqGoogle Scholar.

43. See, for instance, the decision of the EC Court of Justice 6 October 1976 (12/76) [1976] ECR 1473.

44. Kohler, , loc.cit., n.4 p. 566Google Scholar.

45. See the decision of the EC Court of Justice 27 October 1977 (30/77) [1977] ECR 2010; see also its decison of 6 October 1982 (283/81), supra n. 12 for the interpretation of Community law in respect of the doctrine of acte clair.

46. EC Court of Justice 6 October 1976 (14/76) [1976] ECR 1497, NJ 1977, 170 note Schultsz.

47. The German version reads: ‘Wenn ein Vertrag oder Ansprüche aus einem Vertrag den Gegenstand des Verfahrens bilden, vor dem Gericht des Ortes, an dent die Verpflichtung erfüllt worden ist oder zu erfüllen wäre’, the Italian version reads: ‘in materia contrattuale, davanti al giudice del luogo in cui L'obbligazione dedotta in guidizio è stata o deve essere eseguita’.

48. See n. 19 supra.

49. EC Court of Justice 17 January 1980 (56/79) [1980] ECR 89, NJ 1980, 511 note Schultsz. See also Spellenberg, U., ‘Die Vereinbarung des Erfüllungsortes und Art. 5 Nr. 1 des Europaischen Gerichtsstands- und Vollstreckungsubereinkommen’, IPRax (1981) pp. 75–79Google Scholar.

50. See, in the same sense, the decision of the Dutch Gerechtshof (Court of Appeal) at Leeuwarden 4 04 1984, NJ 1984, 745Google Scholar.

51. EC Court of Justice 26 May 1981 (157/80) [1981] ECR 89. See also Habscheid, W.J., ‘Zur Auslegung von Art. II des Protokolls zum EuGVÜ”, IPRax (1982) pp. 173–174Google Scholar.

52. EC Court of Justice 22 February 1979 (133/78) [1979] ECR 733, NJ 1979, 564 note Schultsz, 28 NILR (1981) p. 70 note Verheul.

53. Jenard Report, supra, n. 7, p. 12Google Scholar.

54. The Schlosser Report is the official report on the Accession Convention of 9 October 1978 and is also published in the Official Journal EC of 5 March 1979.

55. EC Court of Justice 15 January 1985 (241/83) (not yet reported). See also RIW/AWD 1985, pp. 238–241.

56. Jenard Report, supra, n.7, p. 35Google Scholar.

57. See Droz, , op.cit., n.3, pp. 101–103Google Scholar; Ras, H.E., ‘De betekenis van het EEG-Executieverdrag voor de rechter van het land waar een onder het verdrag vallende zaak wordt aangebracht’, Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht (1975) p. 886Google Scholar; see also the German, Landgericht at Aachen, 24 10 1975, NJW 1976, p. 487Google Scholar, and the Court of Justice's publication, Digest of Case Law Relating to the European Communities, D-Series, I-16.1-B1.

58. See Schlosser Report cited at n. 54 supra, p. 120.

59. 14 October 1976 (29/76) [1976] ECR 1541, NJ 1982, 95 note Schultsz.

60. 21 June 1978 (150/77) [1978] ECR 1431, NJ 1979, 115 note Schultsz. See also, recently, Sauveplanne, J.G., ‘Consumer Protection in Private International Law’, 32 NILR (1985) pp. 115–117Google Scholar.

61. 6 October 1976 (12/76) [1976] ECR 1473.

62. EC Court of Justice 6 October 1976 (14/76) [1976] ECR 1473, NJ 1977, 170 note Schultsz. For other examples of autonomous interpretation see the EC Court's decisions cited supra, n. 36.

63. See also Kohler, , loc.cit., n.4, p. 567Google Scholar.

64. See the EC Court's publication Digest of Case Law Relating to the European Communities, D-Series, as reviewed by Verheul, J.P. in 30 NILR (1983) pp. 291–292Google Scholar.

65. An excellent example of international cooperation in the field of uniform interpretation can be found in the English decision of the House of Lords in Buchanan v Babco [1978] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 119, in which it referred to an interpretation of Article 23 CMR Convention by the Dutch Arrondissementsrechtbank of Amsterdam Gudgment of 30 March 1977, S & S 1978, 36). In its judgment of 7 June 1978, S & S 1979, 69, the Amsterdam District Court referred in its turn to the interpretation used by the House of Lords. See on this subject Haak, W.E. in WPNR 5606 (1982) p. 283Google Scholar.

66. 7 June 1984 (129/83) [1984] ECR 2397.