Brussels I Regulation European Commentaries on Private International Law

Council Regulation EC No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters 1... Amended Commission Proposal COM

Brussels I Regulation

Private International Law Brussels I Regulation

Edited by

Ulrich Magnus

Peter Mankowski

Prepared by

Alfonso Luis Calvo Caravaca, Javier Carrascosa González,

Richard Fentiman, Carlos Esplugues Mota, Stéphanie Francq,

Helmut Heiss, Konstantinos Kerameus, Luis de Lima Pinheiro,

Ulrich Magnus, Peter Mankowski, Horatia Muir Watt,

Guillermo Palao Moreno, Peter Arnt Nielsen, Lennart Pålsson,

Marta Pertegás Sender, Ilaria Queirolo, Pippa Rogerson,

Lajos Vékás, Paul Vlas, Patrick Wautelet

Textual Advice by

John Blakeley

ISBN 978-3-935808-32-3

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen bibliografi e; detaillierte bibliografi sche Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.

National-© 2007 by Sellier European Law Publishers.

Dieses Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikro- verfi lmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.

Gestaltung: Sandra Sellier, München Herstellung: Karina Hack, München

Satz: fi dus Publikations-Service GmbH, Augsburg Druck und Bindung: Friedrich Pustet KG, Regensburg Gedruckt auf säurefreiem, alterungsbeständigem Papier Printed in Germany.

“Brussels I Regulation” is Volume 1 of the Series “European Commentaries on Private International Law” edited by Ulrich Magnus and Peter Mankowski, written byIntroduction: Ulrich Magnus

Art 1: Pippa Rogerson

Arts 2-4: Paul Vlas

Art 5: Peter Mankowski

Arts 6-7: Horatia Muir Watt

Arts 8-14: Helmut Heiss

Arts 15-17: Peter Arnt Nielsen

Arts 18-21: Carlos Esplugues Mota/Guillermo Palao Moreno

Art 22: Luis de Lima Pinheiro

Art 23: Ulrich Magnus

Art 24: Alfonso Luis Calvo Caravaca/Javier Carrascosa González

Arts 25-26: Ilaria Queirolo

Arts 27-30: Richard Fentiman

Art 31: Marta Pertegás Sender

Arts 32-33: Patrick Wautelet

Art 34: Stéphanie Francq

Arts 35-36: Peter Mankowski

Art 37: Patrick Wautelet

Arts 38-45: Konstantinos Kerameus

Arts 46-52: Lennart Pålsson

Arts 53-58: Lajos Vékás

Arts 59-60: Paul Vlas

Arts 61-76: Peter Mankowski

To be cited as: Magnus/Mankowski/Author‘s name,

Brussels I Regulation (2007) Art # note #

Professor Dr Alfonso Luis Calvo Caravaca

Area de derecho internacional privado de Universidad CarlosIIIde Madrid

Professor Dr Javier Carrascosa González

Professor Titular de Derecho internacional privado Universidad de Murcia

Facultad de Derecho

Professor Dr Carlos Esplugues Mota

Departemento de Derecho Internacional de Universitat de Valencia

Professor Dr Richard G Fentiman,MA,BCL, Esq

Faculty of Law University of Cambridge

Professor Dr Stéphanie Francq

UCL– Universit catholique de Louvain

INT– Dpartement de droit international Charles De Visscher

Professor Dr Helmut Heiss

Fakultt fr Rechtswissenschaft Lehrstuhl fr Brgerliches Recht,

Privatversicherungsrecht, Europisches und Internationales Privatrecht und

Rechtsvergleichung der Universitt Mannheim

Professor Dr Konstantinos Kerameus

Hellenic Institute of International Law Athens University

Professor Doutor Luís Pedro Rocha de Lima Pinheiro

Faculdade de Direito de Universidade de Lisboa

Professor Dr Ulrich Magnus

Fakultt fr Rechtswissenschaft, Seminar fr auslndisches und internationalesPrivat- und Prozessrecht der Universitt Hamburg

Professor Dr Peter Mankowski

Fakultt fr Rechtswissenschaft Seminar fr auslndisches und internationalesPrivat- und Prozessrecht der Universitt Hamburg

Professor Dr Horatia Muir Watt

UFR05 Droit des Affaires de Universit de Paris I (Panthon-Sorbonne)

Professor Dr Peter Arnt Nielsen

Copenhagen Business School Juridisk Institut/Law Department

Professor Dr Guillermo Palao Moreno

Departamento de Derecho Internacional de Universitat de Valencia

Professor Dr Lennart Pålsson

Juridiska fakulteten Universitt Lund

Professor Dr Marta Pertegás Sender

Universiteit Antwerpen – Faculteit Rechten

Professor Dr Ilaria Queirolo

Universit degli Studi di Genova, Facolt di Giurisprudenza,

Dipartimento alm casaregi

Professor Dr Pippa Rogerson

Faculty of Law Ganville & Caius College at University of Cambridge

Professor Dr Lajos Vékás

Eçtvçs Lornd Tudomnyegyetem llam-s-Jogtudomnyi KarPolgri Jogi TanszkProfessor Dr Paul Vlas

Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid Afdeling Internationaal

Recht Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Professor Dr Patrick Wautelet

Dpartement de Droit international priv de Universit de Liege

List of Authors

The Brussels I Regulation is by far the most prominent cornerstone of the European law

of international civil procedure Its imminence could be easily ascertained by everypractitioner even remotely concerned with cross-border work in Europe Howeverarcane private international law in general might appear to practitioners – the Brussels

I Regulation is a well-known and renowned instrument It is heir to the BrusselsConvention which has proven its immeasurable and incomparable value for over thirtyyears The European Court of Justice and the national courts of the Member Stateshave produced an abundance and a treasure of judgments interpreting the Conventionand now the Regulation Legal writing on the Brussels system is thorough and virtuallyuncountable throughout Europe Yet no-one has so far taken the effort of completing atruly pan-European commentary mirroring the pan-European nature of its fascinatingobject The existing commentaries clearly each stem from certain national perspec-tives and more or less deliberately reflect certain national traditions The co-operationacross and bridging borders had not truly reached European jurisprudence in thisregard This is why the idea of this commentary was conceived This commentary forthe first time assembles a team of very prominent and renowned authors from totalEurope The authors’ geographical provenience stretches from Sweden in the North toItaly in the South and from Portugal and the United Kingdom in the West to Hungaryand Greece in the East Perhaps fittingly, both of the general editors are located inHamburg now somewhere near the geographical centre of the extended EuropeanUnion The idea of a pan-European commentary met an overwhelmingly warm wel-come by almost everyone who was invited to participate and to contribute a commen-tary on some articles Apparently now the time is ripe to give such a project a try Itwas, and still should be, beyond even the slightest doubt that the proper language ofsuch a project should be English, the current lingua franca of transnational legal com-munication in Europe Sellier European Law Publishers were as daring and courageous(if not adventurous) as to embrace the idea Patrick Sellier in particular provided thesupport sometimes necessary to keep daunting projects afloat in difficult waters Maythe future show that is was right to endeavour and to go for the stars!

Everyone who has ever undertaken the venture to edit a multi-author work only toowell knows about the absolute necessity of competent assistance The editors thus areabsolutely grateful and cannot remotely express the thanks and accolades due to ourbacking team at Hamburg in a proper fashion Without them it would have beenvirtually impossible to complete this commentary Stefanie Bock and Dr Oliver Knçfelwith sheer and utter indefatigability undertook the burdensome task of unifying thestyle of citations in the contributions Dr Klaus Bitterich participated in this task Heand Dr Knçfel share the responsibility for the index whereas Ms Bock and Jan Lsingcompiled the Table of Cases of decisions by national courts and Ms Bock alone

accomplished the Table of Cases by theECJ The list of Abbreviations was prepared byProfessor Mankowski, once again with Dr Knçfel’s invaluable assistance Secretarialsupport was rendered by Inga Burmeister Last but not least, a very special thank is due

to John Blakeley He took the pain of revising the linguistical niceties of contributionswritten in English by authors who in their majority are not native speakers – and hekept his good (Australian) humour till the very end!

Preface

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000

on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments

in civil and commercial matters 1

Index

Amended Commission Proposal COM (2000) 689 final = Commission of the European Communities – Amended Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, COM (2000) 689 final

Commission Proposal COM (1999) 348 final = Commission of the European Communities – Proposal for

a Council Regulation (EC) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, COM (1999) 348 final

Report Almeida Cruz/Desantes Real/Jenard = Almeida Cruz/Desantes Real / /Jenard, Report on the accession

of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic to the 1968 Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 1990 C 189/35

Report Evrigenis/Kerameus = Evrigenis/Kerameus, Report on the accession of the Hellenic Republic to the Community Convention on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and

commercial matters, OJ 1986 C 298/1

Report Jenard = Jenard, Report on the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 1979 C 59/1

Report Jenard/Möller = Jenard/Möller, Report on the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement

of judgments in civil and commercial matters done at Lugano on 16 September 1988, OJ 1990

C 189/57

Report Schlosser = Schlosser, Report on the Convention on the Association 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, OJ 1979 C 59/71

Revised Commission Proposal COM (1999) 348 final = Commission of the European Communities – Revised Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, COM (2000) 689 final.

List of Principal Works

Referred to by Author Alone

Alexandre, Encyclopdie Dalloz Droit Communautaire, V8 Rglement Bruxelles I (2003)

Béraudo, J-Cl Europe, fasc 3000-3031

Borrás (ed.), Revisi n de los convenios de Bruselas de 1968 y de Lugano de 1988 sobre competencia judicial y ejecuci n de resoluciones judiciales – una reflexi n preliminar de la prctica espaÇola (Madrid/Barcelona 1998)

Brenn, Europischer Zivilprozess (Wien 2005)

Bülow/Böckstiegel/Geimer/Schütze, Internationaler Rechtsverkehr in Zivil- und Handelssachen (looseleaf Mnchen 1954-ongoing)

Burgstaller/Neumayr, Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht (looseleaf Wien 2000-ongoing)

Byrne, The European Union and Lugano Conventions on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments (Dublin 1994)

Calvo Caravaca, Comentario al convenio de Bruselas relativo a la competencia judicial y a la ejecuci n de resoluciones judiciales en materia civil y mercantil (Madrid 1994)

Carbone, Lo spazio giudiziario europeo in matericia civile e commerciale – Da Bruxelles I al Regolamento

Collins, The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (London 1983)

Czernich/Tiefenthaler/Kodek, Kurzkommentar zum Europischen Gerichtsstands- und

Dashwood/Halcon/White, A Guide to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Convention

Droz, Comptence judiciaire et effets des jugements dans le March Commun (Paris 1972)

Fawcett/Harris/Bridge, International Sale of Goods in the Conflict of Laws (Oxford 2005)

Fentiman/Nuyts/Tagaras/Watté (eds.), L’espace judiciare europen en matires civiles et commerciales (Bruxelles 1999)

Gaudemet-Tallon, Comptence et excution des jugements en Europe – Rglement n8 44/2001,

Geimer/Schütze, Internationale Urteilsanerkennung, Vol I/1 (Mnchen 1983)

Gillard/Voyame (eds.), L’espace judiciare europen – La Convention de Lugano du 16 septembre 1988 (Lausanne 1992)

Gothot/Holleaux, La Convention de Bruxelles du 28 septembre 1968 (Paris 1985)

Handbuch des Internationalen Zivilverfahrensrechts Vol I (Tbingen 1982)

Hartley, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (London 1984)

Jonathan Hill, International Commercial Disputes (2nd ed London 1998)

Van Houtte/Pertegás Sender (eds.), Het nieuwe Europese IPR: van verdrag naar verordening

(Antwerpen/Apeldoorn 2001)

Kaye, Civil Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Abingdon, Oxon 1987)

id., European Case Law on the Judgments Conventions (Chichester/Weinheim1998) (Kaye, Case Law) id., Law of the European Judgments Convention (London/Chichester 1999)

Kennett, The Enforcement of Judgments in Europe (Oxford 2000)

Kerameus/Kremlis/Tagaras, The Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and Recognition and

Enforcement of Judgments as in Force in Greece [Translation from Greek] (Athinai 1989), Supplement (Athinai 1996)

de Lima Pinheiro, Direito Internacional Privado, Vol III: CompÞtencia internacional e reconhecimento de decises estrangeiras (Lisboa 2002)

Lupoi, Conflitti transnazionali di giurisdizioni (Milano 2002)

Mari, Il diritto processuale civile della Convenzione di Bruxelles – Il sistema della competenza (Padova 1999)

Mayr/Czernich, Das neue europische Zivilprozessrecht (Wien 2002)

(Mnchen 2002)

Newton, The Uniform Interpretation of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions

(Oxford/Portland, Oreg 2002)

Nuyts/Watté (eds.), International Civil Litigation in Europe and Relations with Third States

(Bruxelles 2005)

O'Malley/Layton, European Civil Practice (London 1989)

Pålsson, Brysselkonventionen, Luganokonventionen och Bryssel I-fçrordningen (Stockholm 2002)

Pontier/Burg, EU Principles on Jurisdiction and Recognition and Enforcement of Jugdments in Civil and Commerical Matters according to the Case Law of The European Court of Justice (The Hague 2004)

Rognlien, Lugano-Konvensjonen (Oslo 1993)

Rosner, Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Money Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Groningen 2004)

Salerno, Giurisdizione ed efficacia delle decisioni stranieri nel Regolamento (CE) n 44/2001

(La revisione della Convenzione di Bruxelles del 1968)

Stone, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments in Europe (London 1998)

Storme/de Leval (eds.), Le droit processuel et judiciaire europen (Brugge 2003)

Teixeira de Sousa/Moura Vicente, Comentrio  Convenżo de Bruxelas de 27 de septembro de 1968 relativa  competÞncia judiciria e  execużo de decises em matria civil e comercial e textos complementarias (Lisboa 1994)

Tirado Robles, La competencia judicial en la Union Europea: comentarios al Convenio de Bruselas (Barcelona 1996)

Virgós Soriano/Garcimartín Alférez, Derecho procesal internacional (Madrid 2000)

Vittoria, La competenza internazionale e l’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia civile e commericale nella giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia (Milano 2005)

Vlas, Rechtspersonen, Praktijkreeks IPR, del 9 (Deventer 2002)

id., EEX-Verordening, in: Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering, Verdragen en Verordeningen (Deventer loose leaf 2004)

Weser, Convention communautaire sur la comptence judiciaire et l’excution des dcisions

(Bruxelles 1975)

List of Principal Works

Beaumont, The Brussels Convention Becomes a Regulation: Implications for Legal Basis, External Competence and Contract Jurisdiction, in: Essays in Honour of Sir Peter North (Oxford 2002), p 9 Béraudo, Le Rglement (CE) du Conseil du 22 dcembre 2000 concernant la comptence judiciaire,

la reconnaissance et l’excution des dcisons en matire civile et commerciale,

Christofaro, ConverÅes no mbito do continento europea sobre competÞncia internacional, in: Estudos

en homenagem ao Professor Jacob Dolinger (Rio de Janeiro 2006), p 451

Droz/Gaudemet-Tallon, La transformation de la Convention de Bruxelles du 27 Septembre 1968 en Rglement du Conseil concernant la comptence judiciaire, la reconnaissance et l’excution des dcisions en matire civile et commerciale, RCDIP 90 (2001), 601

Geimer, Salut fr die Verordnung (EG) Nr 44/2001 (Brssel I-VO) – Einige Betrachtungen zur id., Das Brssel I-System und seine Fortentwicklung im Lichte der Beschlsse von Tampere,

in: Studia in honorem Nmeth Janos (Budapest 2003), p 231

id., Gegenseitige Urteilsanerkennung im System der Brssel I-Verordnung,

in: FS Kostas E Beys (Athinai 2003), p 391

id., Einige Bemerkungen zum Zustndigkeitssystem der Brssel I-Verordnung,

in: FS Hans-Joachim Musielak (Mnchen 2004), p 169

Gołazyñski, Wybrane zagadnienia jurysdykcji krajowej według rozporza˛dzenia Rady Unii Europejskieij z dnia 22 grudnia 2000 r or 44/2001 o jurysdykcji oraz o uznawaniu orzeczen´ w sprawach cywilnych i handlowych, in: Ksie˛ga pamia˛tkowa Profesora Maksymiliana Pazdana (Zakamycze 2005), p 89

Harris, The Brussels Regulation, (2001) 20 CJQ 218

Peter E Herzog, Rules on the International Recognition of Judgments (and on International Jurisdiction)

by Enactments of an International Organizsation: European Community Regulations 1347/2000 and 44/2001, in: Essays in Honor of Arthur T von Mehren (Ardsley, NY 2002), p 83

Heß, Die „Europisierung“ des internationalen Zivilprozessrechts durch den Amsterdamer Vertrag – Chancen und Gefahren, NJW 2000, 23

id., Aktuelle Perspektiven der europischen Prozessrechtsangleichung, JZ 2001, 573

id., Die Integrationsfunktion des Europischen Zivilverfahrensrechts, IPRax 2001, 389

id., Methoden der Rechtsfindung im Europischen Zivilprozessrecht, IPRax 2006, 348

van Hove, Le rglement europen du 22 dcembre 2000 concernant la comptence judiciaire, la naissance et l’excution des dcisions en matire civile et commerciale, ainsi que l’excution des actes juridiques, Rev not belge 2001, 274

recon-Kennett, The Brussels I Regulation, (2001) 50 ICLQ 725

Lombardi/Martinetti, Prime reflessioni sul regolamento (CE) n 44/2001 concernente la competenza giurisdizionale, il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle decisioni nel material civile e commercial, Contratto e impresa/Europa 2001, 371

Marquette, De Europese verordening “Brussel I” betreffende de rechterlijke bevoegdheid, de erkenneing en

de tenuitvorlegungging van beslissingen in burgerlijke en handelszaken, TBH 2002, 499 Merlin, Riconoscimento ed esecutivit della decisione straniera nel Regolamento “Bruxelles I”, Riv dir proc 2001, 433

Mosconi, Un confronto tra la disciplina del riconoscimento e dell’esecuzione delle decisioni stranieri nei recenti regolamenti comunitari, RDIPP 2001, 545

Moura Ramos, The New EC Rules on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments, in: Essays in Honor of Arthur T von Mehren (Ardsley, NY 2002), p 199

Neumayr, Grundlegendes zur Brssel I-Verordnung, vor allem zur internationalen Zustndigkeit, ERA-Forum 2005, 172

Peter Arnt Nielsen, Behind and Beyond Brussels I – An Insider’s View, in: Liber Professorum College of Europe (2005), p 257

Nuyts, La commautarisation de la convention de Bruxelles, J trib 2001, 913

Nuyts/Boularbah/Watté, Le rglement “Bruxelles I” sur la comptence judiciare,

la reconnaissance et l’excution des decisions en matire civile et commerciale,

J trib dr eur 2002, 161

Pålsson, Revisionen av Bryssel- och Luganokonventionerna, SvJT 2001, 373

Additional Bibliography

Rodger, The Communitarisation of International Private Law: Reform of the Brussels Convention by Regulation, 2001 Jur Rev 59

Guus E Schmidt, De EEX-Verordening: de volgende stap in het Europese procesrecht, NIPR 2001, 150 prozessrecht, JBl 2003, 149

Stadler, From the Brussels Convention to Regulation 44/2001: Cornerstones of a European Law of Civil Procedure, (2005) 42 CMLRev 1637

Tagaras, La rvision et communautarisation de la Convention de Bruxelles par le rglement 44/2001,

Vlas, Herziening EEX: van verdrag naar verordening, WPNR 6421 (2000), 745

id., Zoektocht naar de ‘naturrlijke’ rechter in de EEX-Verordening, in: Voorkeur voor de lex fori – Symposium ter gelegenheid van het afscheid van prof mr Th.M de Boer (Deventer 2003), p 181

Europischen Vollstreckungstitel, IPRax 2002, 75

id., Zur Vereinheitlichung des internationalen Zivilverfahrensrechts vier Jahre nach

In-Kraft-Treten des Amsterdamer Vertrages, NJW 2003, 2344.

This Additional Bibliography supplements the List of Principal Works (supra p XII) It solely and sively refers to books or general articles specifically on the Brussels I Regulation It does not list the respective counterparts for the Brussels or Lugano Conventions Writings concerned with single articles of the Regulation are listed before the commentary on the respective article(s).

exclu-AA Ars Aequi

Landesgerichts in Zivilsachen

BBGS Bülow/Böckstiegel/Geimer/Schütze, Internationaler Rechtsverkehr in Zivil- und

Handelssachen (looseleaf Mnchen 1954-ongoing)

Zivilsachen

List of Abbreviations

Cornell L Rev Cornell Law Review

Series D: Convention of 27 September 1968

ETS European Treaty Series

Brussels Convention

List of Abbreviations

ibid ibidem

LIEI Legal Issues of Economic Integration

Entscheidungen in Zivilsachen mit Leitstzen, Sachverhalt und Grnden (Mnchen looseleaf 1951 et seq.)

List of Abbreviations

NZG Neue Zeitschrift fr Gesellschaftsrecht

l

-LSK

OGH

editions)

çAnwBl

Rev der com eur Revista de derecho comunitario europeo

Rev Fac Dir.

Univ Lisboa

Revista da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Lisboa

List of Abbreviations

TranspR Transportrecht

ZWeR Zeitschrift fr Wettbewerbsrecht (Journal for Competition Law)

List of Abbreviations

2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement

of judgments in civil and commercial matters

Official Journal No L 012, 16/01/2001 p 1-23

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article61(c) and Article 67(1) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social

Committee (3),

Whereas:

(1) The Community has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area offreedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons is ensured In order toestablish progressively such an area, the Community should adopt, amongst other things,the measures relating to judicial cooperation in civil matters which are necessary for thesound operation of the internal market

(2) Certain differences between national rules governing jurisdiction and recognition ofjudgments hamper the sound operation of the internal market Provisions to unify the rules

of conflict of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters and to simplify the formalities with

a view to rapid and simple recognition and enforcement of judgments from Member Statesbound by this Regulation are essential

(3) This area is within the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters within the meaning ofArticle 65 of the Treaty

(4) In accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality as set out in Article 5

of the Treaty, the objectives of this Regulation cannot be sufficiently achieved by the ber States and can therefore be better achieved by the Community This Regulation confinesitself to the minimum required in order to achieve those objectives and does not go beyondwhat is necessary for that purpose

Mem-(5) On 27 September 1968 the Member States, acting under Article 293, fourth indent, ofthe Treaty, concluded the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judg-ments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by Conventions on the Accession ofthe New Member States to that Convention (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Brussels Con-

vention’) (4) On 16 September 1988 Member States andEFTAStates concluded the LuganoConvention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and CommercialMatters, which is a parallel Convention to the 1968 Brussels Convention Work has beenundertaken for the revision of those Conventions, and the Council has approved the content

of the revised texts Continuity in the results achieved in that revision should be ensured.(6) In order to attain the objective of free movement of judgments in civil and commercialmatters, it is necessary and appropriate that the rules governing jurisdiction and the recog-nition and enforcement of judgments be governed by a Community legal instrument which

is binding and directly applicable

(7) The scope of this Regulation must cover all the main civil and commercial matters apartfrom certain well-defined matters

(8) There must be a link between proceedings to which this Regulation applies and theterritory of the Member States bound by this Regulation Accordingly common rules onjurisdiction should, in principle, apply when the defendant is domiciled in one of thoseMember States

(9) A defendant not domiciled in a Member State is in general subject to national rules ofjurisdiction applicable in the territory of the Member State of the court seised, and a defen-dant domiciled in a Member State not bound by this Regulation must remain subject to theBrussels Convention

(10) For the purposes of the free movement of judgments, judgments given in a MemberState bound by this Regulation should be recognised and enforced in another Member Statebound by this Regulation, even if the judgment debtor is domiciled in a third State.(11) The rules of jurisdiction must be highly predictable and founded on the principle thatjurisdiction is generally based on the defendant’s domicile and jurisdiction must always beavailable on this ground save in a few well-defined situations in which the subject-matter ofthe litigation or the autonomy of the parties warrants a different linking factor The domicile

of a legal person must be defined autonomously so as to make the common rules moretransparent and avoid conflicts of jurisdiction

(12) In addition to the defendant’s domicile, there should be alternative grounds of diction based on a close link between the court and the action or in order to facilitate thesound administration of justice

juris-(13) In relation to insurance, consumer contracts and employment, the weaker party should

be protected by rules of jurisdiction more favourable to his interests than the general rulesprovide for

(14) The autonomy of the parties to a contract, other than an insurance, consumer oremployment contract, where only limited autonomy to determine the courts having juris-diction is allowed, must be respected subject to the exclusive grounds of jurisdiction laiddown in this Regulation

(15) In the interests of the harmonious administration of justice it is necessary to minimisethe possibility of concurrent proceedings and to ensure that irreconcilable judgments will not

be given in two Member States There must be a clear and effective mechanism for resolvingcases of lis pendens and related actions and for obviating problems flowing from nationaldifferences as to the determination of the time when a case is regarded as pending For thepurposes of this Regulation that time should be defined autonomously

(16) Mutual trust in the administration of justice in the Community justifies judgments given

in a Member State being recognised automatically without the need for any procedure except

in cases of dispute

(17) By virtue of the same principle of mutual trust, the procedure for making enforceable inone Member State a judgment given in another must be efficient and rapid To that end, thedeclaration that a judgment is enforceable should be issued virtually automatically afterpurely formal checks of the documents supplied, without there being any possibility for thecourt to raise of its own motion any of the grounds for non-enforcement provided for by thisRegulation

(18) However, respect for the rights of the defence means that the defendant should be able

to appeal in an adversarial procedure, against the declaration of enforceability, if he considersone of the grounds for non-enforcement to be present Redress procedures should also beavailable to the claimant where his application for a declaration of enforceability has beenrejected

(19) Continuity between the Brussels Convention and this Regulation should be ensured,and transitional provisions should be laid down to that end The same need for continuityapplies as regards the interpretation of the Brussels Convention by the Court of Justice of theEuropean Communities and the 1971 Protocol(5) should remain applicable also to casesalready pending when this Regulation enters into force

(20) The United Kingdom and Ireland, in accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on theposition of the United Kingdom and Ireland annexed to the Treaty on European Union and tothe Treaty establishing the European Community, have given notice of their wish to take part

in the adoption and application of this Regulation

(21) Denmark, in accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of mark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the EuropeanCommunity, is not participating in the adoption of this Regulation, and is therefore notbound by it nor subject to its application

Den-(22) Since the Brussels Convention remains in force in relations between Denmark and theMember States that are bound by this Regulation, both the Convention and the 1971 Pro-tocol continue to apply between Denmark and the Member States bound by this Regulation.(23) The Brussels Convention also continues to apply to the territories of the Member Stateswhich fall within the territorial scope of that Convention and which are excluded from thisRegulation pursuant to Article 299 of the Treaty

(24) Likewise for the sake of consistency, this Regulation should not affect rules governingjurisdiction and the recognition of judgments contained in specific Community instruments.(25) Respect for international commitments entered into by the Member States means thatthis Regulation should not affect conventions relating to specific matters to which theMember States are parties.

(26) The necessary flexibility should be provided for in the basic rules of this Regulation inorder to take account of the specific procedural rules of certain Member States Certainprovisions of the Protocol annexed to the Brussels Convention should accordingly be in-corporated in this Regulation

(27) In order to allow a harmonious transition in certain areas which were the subject ofspecial provisions in the Protocol annexed to the Brussels Convention, this Regulation laysdown, for a transitional period, provisions taking into consideration the specific situation incertain Member States

(28) No later than five years after entry into force of this Regulation the Commission willpresent a report on its application and, if need be, submit proposals for adaptations.(29) The Commission will have to adjust Annexes I toIVon the rules of national jurisdiction,the courts or competent authorities and redress procedures available on the basis of theamendments forwarded by the Member State concerned; amendments made to Annexes VandVIshould be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468 /ECof 28 June 1999laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on theCommission (6),

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Introduction

I The purposes of the Brussels I

II The Brussels I Regulation as part of

the European law of international civil

procedure

1 The development of a European

2 Brussels I Regulation as the

fundament of a European law of

3 Further surrounding international

III Historical background of

6 The revision of the Brussels

9 The present relevance of

on Jurisdiction and Recognition in Civil and Commercial Matters

10 The relevance of the Lugano

Convention

2 Direct applicability and precedence

V The scope of application of the Regulation

1 The territorial scope of application

VI Interpretation of the Regulation

a) The verbal interpretation 101 b) The historic interpretation 102 c) The systematic interpretation 103 d) The purposive interpretation 106

f) Conformity with Community law 109

VII The reference procedure

d) Relevance for the original dispute 121 e) Obligation to refer 123 f) Formal requirements 126

3 The effects of decisions of the ECJ 127

4 The reference procedure under Art 68(3) EC Treaty 128

Bibliography

Anweiler, Die Auslegungsmethoden des

Gerichts-hofs der Europischen Gemeinschaften (1997)

Brückner, Bindungswirkung an die Entscheidungen des EuGH im EuGV und der Luganer Konventi-

on, in: Hommelhoff/Jayme/Mangold (eds.),

Europ-ischer Binnenmarkt IPR und Rechtsangleichung

(1995), p 263

Buck, ber die Auslegungsmethoden des

Gerichts-hofs der Europischen Gemeinschaft (1998)

Calvo Caravaca/Carrascosa González, Derecho

Colneric, Auslegung des Gemeinschaftsrechts und

gemeinschaftsrechtskonforme Auslegung, ZEuP

2005, 225

Duintjer Tebbens, L’interprtation dynamique, par la

Cour de Justice Europenne, de la comptence en

matire contractuelle (l’art 5, 18 de la Convention

de Bruxelles de 1968), in: Contributions in Honour

of Jean Georges Sauveplanne (1984) p 65

id., Die einheitliche Auslegung des Lug, in:

Rei-chelt (ed.), Europisches Kollisionsrecht (1993),

p 49

Hausmann, Die Revision des Brsseler

berein-kommens von 1968, EuLF (D) 2000/2001, 40

Hess, Methode der Rechtsfindung im

Europ-ischen Zivilprozessrecht, IPRax 2006, 346

Jayme/Kohler, Europisches Kollisionsrecht 2005:

Hegemonialgesten auf dem Weg zu einer

Gesamt-vereinheitlichung, IPRax 2005, 481

Junker, Vom Brsseler bereinkommen zur

Brsse-ler Verordnung – Wandlungen des Internationalen

Zivilprozessrechts, RIW 2002, 569

Kennett, The Brussels I Regulation, (2001) 50

Kohler, Vom EuGV zur EuGVVO: Grenzen und

Konsequenzen der Vergemeinschaftung, in: FS

Reinhold Geimer (2002) p 461

Kropholler, Internationales Einheitsrecht (1975)

id., Die Auslegung von EG-Verordnungen zum

Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrecht, in:

(2001), p 583

Lando, Vorabentscheidungsverfahren und

Ausle-gungsprotokoll des EuGV, in: Reichelt (ed.),

Vor-abentscheidungsverfahren vor dem EuGH (1998),

Lu-325 and EuZW 2002, 15 Moura Ramos, The New EC Rules on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judg- ments, in: Essays in honor of Arthur T von Meh- ren (2002), p 199

Pålsson, Luganokonventionen (1992) id., Revisionen av Bryssel- och Luganokonventio- nerna, SvJT 2001, 373

Pfeiffer, Internationale Zustndigkeit und uale Gerechtigkeit (1995)

prozess-Piltz, Vom EuGV zur Brssel I-Verordnung, NJW

2002, 789 Reich, Understanding EU Law Objectives, Princi-

2005) Rognlien, Luganokonvensjonen (1993) Rühl, Das Haager bereinkommen ber die Ver- einbarung gerichtlicher Zustndigkeiten: Rck- schritt oder Fortschritt?, IPRax 2005, 410 Schack, Hundert Jahre Haager Konferenz fr IPR Ihre Bedeutung fr die Vereinheitlichung des In- ternationalen Zivilverfahrensrechts, RabelsZ 57 (1993) 224

id., Die EG-Kommission auf dem Holzweg von Amsterdam, ZEuP 1999, 805

Schmidt-Parzefall, Die Auslegung des einkommens von Lugano (1995)

Parallelber-Schoibl, Vom Brsseler bereinkommen zur sel-I-Verordnung: Neuerungen im europischen Zivilprozessrecht, JBl 2003, 149

Brs-Scholz, Das Problem der autonomen Auslegung des EuGV (1998)

Schwander (ed.), Das Lugano-bereinkommen (1990)

Vandekerckhove, De interpretatie van europees voegdheids- en executierecht, in: van Houtte/Per- tegás Sender (eds.), Het nieuwe Europese IPR: van verdrag naar verordening (2001), p 11

be-Rolf Wagner, Zum zeitlichen Anwendungsbereich des Lug, ZIP 1994, 81

on Jurisdiction and Recognition in Civil and Commercial Matters

Watté, Les relations des Conventions de Bruxelles

et de Lugano sur la comptence internationale et

les effets des jugements, in:

Fentiman/Nuyts/Taga-ras/Watté (eds.), L’espace judiciaire europen en matire civile et commerciale (1999), p 3.

I The purposes of the Brussels I Regulation

1The Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments incivil and commercial matters, the so-called Brussels I Regulation (in the following: theRegulation) which is the subject of this commentary pursues a number of purposes Itsobjectives are enshrined in the Recitals to the Regulation and they are further detailed

in many judgments of the European Court of Justice Though these judgments wererendered on the basis of the Brussels Convention of 1968 they continue to be relevantalso for the understanding and interpretation of the Regulation.1

2Primarily, the Regulation intends to facilitate the judicial treatment of suits and judg-ments among the Member States The Regulation aims at easier and more uniformrules and faster and simpler procedures for civil cross-border litigation within theEU.2

It is based on the conviction that differences between national laws on jurisdiction andrecognition of judgments and differing procedural formalities impede the judicial co-operation within the internal market Difficulties to enforce civil claims in otherMember States discourage persons to establish cross-border trade relations and hamperthereby considerably the sound operation of the internal market.3The Regulationremoves a great deal of these differences and difficulties and attempts to enable andensure the free movement of judgments.4The Regulation is based on the principle ofmutual trust in the legal system and judicial institutions of each other Member State,

in the legality and correctness of judicial procedures taken, and decisions rendered, inother Member States.5The mutual trust includes the expectation that each MemberState is willing to strictly obey to the provisions of the Regulation

3

A further purpose is to base jurisdiction, and thereby the defendant’s obligation tosubmit to the competent court’s jurisdiction,6on uniform and fair connecting factors.The defendant must defend him- or herself only at places to which the dispute is

para 49; as to the interpretation of the Regulation see infra Introduction note 91 (Magnus).

I-627 para 20: “The ‘scheme’ of the Convention as a whole is indifferent to purely internal situations such as a conflict of territorial jurisdiction between the courts of the same country.”)

Zustndigkeit und prozessuale Gerechtigkeit (1995) p 349, 762.

Changepoint SA, (Case C-159/02) [2004] ECR I-3565 para 24; see further Layton/Mercer para 11.015.

default etc.) if s /he omits to react to a suit instituted by the claimant.

sufficiently related to For this reason the Regulation has abolished a number of tional provisions on jurisdiction which are regarded as exorbitant.7Fairness is alsogranted by specific protective rules on jurisdiction in the interest of certain socially oreconomically weaker parties, namely insured persons, employees and consumers who

na-in essence can only be sued na-in ‘their’ forum.8

4 Another main objective is to secure the principle of legal certainty with respect tojurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments The Regulation estab-lishes a system of provisions, in particular on jurisdiction, the outcome of which must

be “highly predictable”.9This aims at the highest possible foreseeability and certainty

in the application and interpretation of the provisions of the Regulation so that theparties can as far as possible rely in advance on these rules In particular, a reasonabledefendant should be able to foresee in which courts in theEUs /he could be sued.10

Therefore, it is not a matter of discretion for the court seised whether to entertain a suit

or not; the court is bound by the provisions of the Regulation The doctrine of forumnon conveniens so well known in Common Law jurisdictions is not allowed under theRegulation.11

5 While the Regulation aims on the one hand at security and certainty in cross-borderlitigation it pursues on the other hand also the objective to grant the parties the widestpossible freedom to select the competent court.12 Choice of court agreements arewidely recognised (Art 23) and find their limits only where the Regulation providesfor exclusive or protective jurisdiction.13

Moreover, a defendant can always submit to

Introduction

4, 5

Brussels I Regulation

on Jurisdiction and Recognition in Civil and Commercial Matters

Bracco and Bracco Industria Chimica SpA, (Case 129/92) [1994] ECR I-117, I-155 para 32; Custom Made Commercial Ltd v Stawa Metallbau GmbH (Case 288/92) [1994] ECR I-2913, I-2956 paras 15, 18; Benincasa v Dentalkit Srl, (Case C-269/95) [1997] ECR I-3767, I-3798 para 28; Réunion europé- enne SA v Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV and Master of the vessel ``Alblasgracht 002'', (Case C-51/ 97) [1998] ECR I-6511, I-6548 para 46; see further Layton/Mercer para 11.020.

(Case 26/91) [1992] ECR I-3967, I-3995 para 18; GIE Groupe Concorde et al v Master of the Vessel

``Suhadiwarno Panjan'', (Case C-440/97) [1999] ECR I-6307, I-6350 para 24; Besix SA v nigungsbau Alfred Kretzschmar GmbH & Co KG (WABAG) and Planungs- und Forschungsgesellschaft Dipl Ing W Kretzschmar GmbH & KG (Plafog), (Case C-256/00) [2002] ECR I-1699, I-1732 para 52; Andrew Owusu v Nugent B Jackson, trading as ``Villa Holidays Bal-Inn Villas'', Mammee Bay Resorts Ltd., Mammee Bay Club Ltd., The Enchanted Garden Resorts & Spa Ltd., Consulting Services Ltd., Town

Wasserrei-& Country Resorts Ltd., (Case C-281/02) [2005] ECR I-1383 para 38.

Ltd., Mammee Bay Club Ltd., The Enchanted Garden Resorts & Spa Ltd., Consulting Services Ltd., Town

& Country Resorts Ltd., (Case C-281/02) [2005] ECR I-1383 paras 37 et seq.

jurisdiction).

an incompetent court’s jurisdiction except where another court has exclusive tion (Art 24).

jurisdic-6Though it could be regarded as rather a technical matter it is also of high practicalimportance that the Regulation aims at the widest possible avoidance of concurrentproceedings in different courts and of differing judgments on the same matter.14

7

As regards the recognition and enforcement of judgments the Regulation is governed

by the principle of automatic recognition which can be refused for few reasons only and

by the further principle that enforcement must be efficient and rapid.15

8Last but not least the Regulation aims at continuity with respect to its predecessor, theBrussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judg-ments in Civil and Commercial Matters.16This continuity is further secured by the factthat theECJwas already competent to interpret the Brussels Convention and remainscompetent to interpret the Regulation Since the Regulation modified the text andsubstance of the Convention only modestly17mostECJjudgments on the Conventionremain valid under the Regulation TheECJdecisions can be found on the internetunder www.europa.eu.int or under www.curia.eu.int

II The Brussels I Regulation as part of the European law of

international civil procedure

1 The development of a European law of international civil procedure

9The last few years saw a true outburst of legislative activities of the European Com-munity in the field of international procedural law Numerous Regulations and Direc-tives on this subject where enacted since the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997 amendedtheECTreaty, established a single area of freedom, security and justice18and clothedthe European Union with new competences in matters of administration of justice.19

Except Denmark all Member States of the Union accepted this extension20and are

revised by the Treaty of Amsterdam Denmark does not participate in, and is not bound by, measures

in pursuance of the new competence The EU and Denmark have, however, prepared separate struments by which Denmark will take over single Regulations or Directives concerning judicial measures; a respective Treaty concerning the application of the Regulation will be enter into force in the near future: see Jayme/Kohler, IPRax 2005, 481, 485 et seq.; see further infra Introduction notes 53

in-et seq (Magnus).

now directly bound by those Regulations and have to implement the respective rectives This is also true for the new Member States which joined theEUin 2004 and2007.

Di-10 The main new instruments which have been created since the Treaty of Amsterdamentered into force are the following (in the order of the time of their enactment):– Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments inmatrimonial matters and in matters of parental resposibility for children of bothspouses (29 May 2000; so-called BrusselsIIRegulation);

– Regulation on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial ments in civil and commercial matters (29 May 2000; Service Regulation);– Regulation on insolvency proceedings (29 May 2000; Insolvency Regulation);– Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments incivil and commercial matters (22 December 2000; Brussels I Regulation);

docu-– Regulation on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking

of evidence in civil and commercial matters (28 May 2001; Evidence Regulation);– Council Decision establishing a European Judicial Network in civil and commercialmatters (28 May 2001);

– Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (2001);

– Directive to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing mum common rules relating to legal aid and other financial aspects of civil pro-ceedings (27 January 2003);

mini-– Regulation concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of ments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility (27 November2003; so-called BrusselsIIbis Regulation);

judg-– Regulation creating a European enforcement order for uncontested claims (21 April2004)

11 It is clear from this list which could be, and will be, still enlarged by further present21

on Jurisdiction and Recognition in Civil and Commercial Matters

undertakings and credit institutions (Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings, OJ 2001

L 110/28 and Directive 2001/24 /EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001

on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions, OJ 2001 L 125/15) or on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interest (Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998, OJ 1998 L 166/51) Also a Council Recommendation of 4 April 2001 on the principles for out-of-court bodies involved in the consensual resolution of consumer disputes, OJ

2001 L 109/56 can be mentioned See also COM (2004) 718 final.

succession matters which are presently still excluded from the scope of the existing instruments are being prepared and will be enacted as Brussels III and Brussels IV Regulations in the coming years.

the European seize order exemplifies.

tional civil litigation apart from arbitration24 are dealt with by these instruments:jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments, service of claims, evidenceabroad, legal aid, insolvency proceedings Yet, the different instruments do not coverall kinds of civil and commercial law disputes25nor have the instruments been enacted

in a fully coordinated and systematic way Nonetheless taken together they form atleast a nucleus of a uniform code of international civil procedure for theEU And it isevident that the development is still in the beginning and will continue

2 Brussels I Regulation as the fundament of a European law of

international civil procedure

12Among the presently existing instruments on European international civil procedurethe Brussels I Regulation is certainly the most important one As compared to theother instruments it concerns the most important questions of international civillitigation, namely jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments It hasthe widest scope of application since it covers almost all civil and commercial matters

Of all mentioned instruments it is most often applied: this is evidenced by much morethan hundred judgments of theECJ26and probably some thousand decisions of nation-

al courts (though thus far in essence on the Brussels Convention) It is best known due

to the fact that it had a predecessor of almost identical wording, the Brussels tion on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil andCommercial Matters of 27 September 1968, and that this predecessor had been uni-formly interpreted by the European Court of Justice since almost fourty years Withinthe European law of international civil procedure the Brussels I Regulation thereforeconstitutes the fundament on which all further development has built in the past andhas to build also in the future

Conven-3 Further surrounding international treaties

13However, the European law of cross-border civil procedure as Community law is sur-rounded and supplemented by further international treaties on same matters Thementioned Brussels Convention though superseded by the Brussels I Regulation as be-tween all other Member States27is still in force with respect to Denmark The LuganoConvention,28a parallel treaty to the Brussels Convention, regulates the jurisdiction

Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958.

respect to Denmark but also with respect to those territories of the Member States to which the Brussels Convention was extended by its former Art 60 or by special declararion of the respective Member State and to which the Regulation does not extend due to Art 299 (3) EC Treaty in connection with Schedule II of the Treaty; see further infra notes 48 et seq and the comments to Art 68 (Mankowski).