- Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters [2001] OJ L12/1 (“Brussels I Regulation” or “the Regulation”), replacing the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters signed at Brussels on 27 September 1968 [1998] OJ C27/1 (“the Brussels Convention”). There is a parallel convention concluded between the EU and EFTA countries, the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters done at Lugano on 30 October 2007 [2009] OJ L147/1, replacing the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters done at Lugano on 16 September 1988 [1988] OJ L319/9. The relevant provisions of the 2007 Lugano Convention are identical to those of the Brussels I Regulation, whereas the relevant provisions of the 1988 Lugano Convention are identical to those of the Brussels Convention. The two Lugano Conventions will not be analysed explicitly in this article.
- European Commission, “Proposal for the Brussels I Regulation” COM(1999) 348 final, 14; for the debate that took place during the negotiations of the new text of Art 5(1) see the Pocar Report [2009] OJ C319/1, paras 46–49.
- Case 14/76 A De Bloos, SPLR v Société en Commandite par Actions Bouyer [1976] ECR 1497.
- Case 12/76 Industrie Tessili Italiana Como v Dunlop AG [1976] ECR 1473.
- The ECJ has dealt with this issue in the following cases: Case C-125/92 Mulox IBC Ltd v Geels [1993] ECR I-4075; Case C-383/95 Rutten v Cross Medical Ltd [1997] ECR I-57; Case C-37/00 Weber v Universal Ogden Services Ltd [2002] ECR I-2013; Case C-437/00 Pugliese v Finmeccanica SpA [2003] ECR I-3573.
- Case 266/85 Hassan Shenavai v Klaus Kreischer [1987] ECR 239.
- Ibid, para 19.
- Case C-420/97 Leathertex Divisione Sintetici SpA v Bodetex BVBA [1999] ECR I-6747.
- Case C-256/00 Besix SA v Wasserreinigungsbau Alfred Kretzschmar GmbH & Co KG (WABAG) and Planungs- und Forschungsgesellschaft Dipl Ing W Kretzschmar GmbH & KG (Plafog) [2002] ECR I-1699.
- Ibid, para 28.
- Ibid, para 29; also para 32.
- Ibid, paras 24–37.
- See JJ Fawcett and JM Carruthers, Cheshire, North & Fawcett: Private International Law (Oxford University Press, 2008), 233, 241 and 245; H Gaudemet-Tallon, “Besix SA v Wasserreinigungs-bau Alfred Kretzschmar GmbH & Co KG (WABAG) and Planungs- und Forschungsgesellschaft Dipl Ing W Kretzschmar GmbH & KG (Plafog)” (2002) 91 Revue critique de droit international privé 588 (note). See also Case C-386/05 Color Drack GmbH v Lexx International Vertriebs GmbH [2007] ECR I-3699, Opinion of AG Bot, fn 30, para 115.
- Besix, supra n 9, paras 28–29. Similarly, AG Alber at para 63 of his Opinion in Besix.
- See generally K Takahashi, “Jurisdiction in Matters Relating to a Contract: Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention and Regulation” (2002) 27 European Law Review 530.
- See Case C-381/08 Car Trim GmbH v KeySafety System Srl [2010] ECR I-00000, paras 53–57; Case C-87/10 Electrosteel Europe SA v Edil Centro SpA [2011] ECR I-00000.
- Supra n 13.
- Ibid, para 30. Contrary to this, AG Bot was of the opinion that the question of which court within a Member State had jurisdiction was a matter of “procedural autonomy of the Member State on whose territory the goods have been delivered”, para 128 of his Opinion. For a strong criticism of this part of the judgment, see J Harris, “Sale of Goods and the Relentless March of the Brussels I Regulation” (2007) 123 Law Quarterly Review 522.
- Color Drack, supra n 13, para 38.
- Ibid, para 40.
- Ibid, para 42.
- Case C-204/08 Peter Rehder v Air Baltic Corporation [2009] ECR I-6073.
- C-19/09 Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger GmbH v Silva Trade SA [2010] ECR I-00000.
- Mr Rehder sought compensation on the basis of Regulation (EC) 261/2004 of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of fl ights [2004] OJ L46/1.
- Brussels I Regulation, Art 15(3).
- Rehder, supra n 22, para 38.
- Ibid, para 42. It is worth noting that the ECJ disregarded the fact that many important in-fl ight services are performed in international airspace.
- Supra n 23.
- Ibid, para 38.
- Ibid, para 40.
- Ibid.
- Ibid, para 42.
- See the Opinion of AG Trstenjak, paras 81–94, in particular paras 84 and 91–93.
- See Case C-533/07 Falco Privatstiftung and Thomas Rabitsch v Gisela Weller-Lindhorst [2009] ECR I-3327.
- J Hill, “Jurisdiction in Matters Relating to a Contract under the Brussels Convention” (1995) 44 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 591. These tests were also used by Takahashi, supra n 15.
- Brussels I Regulation, Art 2; Brussels Convention, Art 2.
- Wood Floor, supra n 23, para 22. See also Tessili, supra n 4, 13; Shenavai v Kreischer, supra n 6, paras 6 and 18; Besix, supra n 9, para 30; Color Drack, supra n 13, para 22; Rehder, supra n 22, para 32.
- Case C-288/92, [1994] ECR I-2913.
- Ibid, para 16 (emphasis added).
- Ibid, para 21.
- Hill, supra n 35, 598–602.
- Supra n 38, para 80.
- See Hoff v Filtertechniek Nederland BV [2001] ILPr 8 (Court of Cassation, France).
- The following Member States consider that the obligation of payment is, in principle, to be performed at the debtor's domicile: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain (the situation is the same in the laws of Iceland, Norway and Switzerland). The Member States that consider that this obligation is, in principle, to be performed at the creditor's domicile are: Denmark, England, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Scotland, Sweden (the situation is the same under the 1964 Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods and the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods). See A Briggs and P Rees, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Informa, 5th edn, 2010), para 2.164.
- Electrosteel Europe SA v Edil Centro SpA, supra n 16, concerned a dispute between an Italian seller and a French buyer. The goods were sold on ex-works terms, but the place of physical delivery and presumably inspection was in France. The ECJ held that the Italian courts had jurisdiction because the delivery under the contract occurred in Italy. However, the French courts were arguably more factually closely connected with the dispute.
- Regulation (EC) 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) [2008] OJ L177/6 (“Rome I Regulation”) replacing the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations done at Rome on 19 June 1980 [1998] OJ C27/34 (“Rome Convention”).
- L Collins, A Briggs, J Harris, J McClean, C McLachlan and C Morse (eds), Dicey & Morris on the conflict of Laws (Sweet & Maxwell, 14th edn, 2006), para 32–127.
- [2002] EWCA Civ 1024; [2004] 2 CLC 696; see also Ennstone Building Products Ltd v Stanger Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 3059.
- Fawcett and Carruthers, supra n 13, 721.
- De Bloos, supra n 3, para 9; Shenavai v Kreischer, supra n 6, para 8; Leathertex, supra n 8, para 31; Besix, supra n 9, para 27.
- Besix, supra n 9, para 26; Color Drack, supra n 13, para 20; Rehder, supra n 22, para 6; Wood Floor, supra n 23, para 5.
- Color Drack, supra n 13.
- For a discussion of the legal uncertainty generated by the choice-of-law rules of the Rome Convention, see S Atrill, “Choice of Law in Contract: The Missing Pieces of the Article 4 Jigsaw” (2004) 53 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 549; J Hill, “'Choice of Law in Contract under the Rome Convention: The Approach of the UK Courts' (2004) 53 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 352.
- Case C-440/97 GIE Groupe Concorde and Others v The Master of the “Vessel Suhadiwarno Panjan” and Others [1999] ECR I-6307, para 26; the Pocar Report, supra n 2, para 44. Cf GAL Droz, “Hassan Shenavai v Klaus Kreischer” (1987) 76 Revue critique du droit international privé 798 (note), who is of the opinion, expressed at 802, that determining the hierarchy among the obligations in question is a matter of fact; similarly K Hertz, Jurisdiction in Contract and Torts under the Brussels Convention (Jurist- og?konomforbundets Forlag, 1998), 97–98.
- Union Transport Plc v Continental Lines SA [1992] 1 WLR 15 (HL).
- For a discussion of these issues, see Takahashi, supra n 15, 532–38 and 540.
- Color Drack, supra n 13, para 40; Rehder, supra n 22, para 35; Wood Floor, supra n 23, para 31.
- Color Drack, supra n 13 above, Opinion of AG Bot, para 125.
- According to P Mankowski, “'Commercial Agents under European Jurisdiction Rules” (2008) 10 Yearbook of Private International Law 19, 33 one such example could be the case where 28% of contractual performance is effected in one country, 25% in both the second and third country and the remaining 22% in the fourth country. 28% is obviously more than 25% and 22%. Standing alone, however, it is not a very significant percentage–it is not even close to reaching 72%. It is uncertain whether Article 5(1)(b) confers jurisdiction on the courts of the first country or whether this is the case where the courts for all places of performance have jurisdiction.
- See European Commission, “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome I)” COM(2005) 650 final, 6.
Journal of Private International Law
Volume 7, 2011 - Issue 2