EU Private International Law Harmonization of Laws

Series editor: John Usher, Professor of European Law and Head, School ofLaw, University of Exeter, UK European integration is the driving force behind constant evolution andchange in the

Series editor: John Usher, Professor of European Law and Head, School of

Law, University of Exeter, UK

European integration is the driving force behind constant evolution andchange in the laws of the member states and the institutions of the EuropeanUnion This important series will offer short, state-of-the-art overviews ofmany specific areas of EU law, from competition law to consumer law andfrom environmental law to labour law Whilst most books will take a thematic,vertical approach, others will offer a more horizontal approach and considerthe overarching themes of EU law

Distilled from rigorous substantive analysis, and written by some of thebest names in the field, as well as the new generation of scholars, these booksare designed both to guide the reader through the changing legislation itself,and to provide a firm theoretical foundation for advanced study They will be

an invaluable source of reference for scholars and postgraduate students in thefields of EU law and European integration, as well as lawyers from the respec-tive individual fields and policymakers within the EU

Titles in the series include:

EU Consumer Law and Policy

Stephen Weatherill

EU Private International Law

Harmonization of Laws

Peter Stone

EU Private International Law

Harmonization of Laws

Peter Stone

Professor of Law, University of Essex, UK

ELGAR EUROPEAN LAW

Edward Elgar

Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA

All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,

mechanical or photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission

A catalogue record for this book

is available from the British Library

ISBN-13: 978 1 84542 015 4 (cased)

ISBN-10: 1 84542 015 2 (cased)

Typeset by Cambrian Typesetters, Camberley, Surrey

Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall

PART II CIVIL JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS

Series editor’s preface

Private international law at the European level is a topic which in recent yearshas both grown enormously and changed its legal character Some seven years

ago, Professor Stone published a book on Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments in Europe, analysing the 1968 Brussels Convention on that subject and the case

law to which it had given rise Since 2000, that Convention has been replaced

by a directly applicable Regulation, and Regulations have also been adopted,

to cite the major examples, on recognition and enforcement of judgments inmatrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, on insolvencyproceedings, on the service in Member States of judicial and extrajudicialdocuments in civil or commercial matters, and on co-operation between thecourts of Member States in the taking of civil or commercial evidence.Furthermore, the case law in relation to the legislation on jurisdiction andjudgments has prompted one commentator to write an article on the ‘system-atic dismantling’ of the common law of conflict of laws Hence the need for,and the importance of, the present book, and I am very grateful to ProfessorStone for guiding us (sometimes critically) through this rapidly developingarea with commendable clarity

So far as the legal character of the legislation is concerned, the originalBrussels Convention, whilst based on what is now Article 293 of the ECTreaty, was not in the strict sense EC Law, but rather a separate conventionbetween the Member States of the EC; it was nevertheless described as ensur-ing the free movement of judgments to accompany the free movement ofgoods, persons, services and capital under the EC Treaty However, theAmsterdam Treaty brought judicial co-operation into a new Title IV of the ECTreaty, giving rise to the legislation mentioned in the previous paragraph – but

at a price Title IV also deals with the sensitive issues of asylum, immigrationand visas, and Protocols were negotiated to the effect that it should not in prin-ciple apply to the UK, Ireland, or Denmark The UK and Ireland neverthelesshave the power under their Protocols to opt-in to legislation adopted underTitle IV, and they have done so with regard to all the measures discussed inthis book However, the Danish Protocol does not contain such a provision,meaning that this area has become a practical example of differentiated inte-gration within the EU However, it will be seen that for jurisdiction and judg-ments, the original solution was for the Brussels Convention to continue toapply in relations between the other Member States and Denmark, and in 2005

vii

an international agreement was signed between the rest of the EU andDenmark to allow for the application of the Regulation in Denmark, a modelwhich presumably can be followed in relation to the other relevant measures.Thus the issues go beyond specific questions of private international law, andthis book will be found to be of interest by a wider audience

John A UsherNovember 2005

In recent years, European Community legislation designed to harmonize thelaws of the Member States on many important topics within private inter-national law has been adopted or proposed This volume seeks to analyse indetail the most significant of these EC measures and proposals

After a general introduction, Chapters 2–11 examine the Brussels IRegulation on civil jurisdiction and judgments Chapters 12 and 13 deal withthe Rome Convention on choice of law in respect of contracts, and Chapters

14 and 15 with the Rome II Proposal on choice of law in respect of torts andrestitutionary obligations Family matters, especially the Brussels IIARegulation on matrimonial matters and parental responsibility, are considered

in Chapters 16–18 Finally, Chapter 19 examines the Insolvency Regulation.The present volume reached its semi-final form in November 2005, andmakes use of materials available by that date It has also been possible toincorporate some important subsequent developments in the case-law up toMarch 2006 But the three EC Commission proposals released in December

2005 and January 2006 – the Maintenance Proposal, the Rome I Proposal, andthe amended Rome II Proposal – came too late for their content to be exam-ained

Peter StoneColchesterMarch 2006

ix

ABCI v Banque Franco-Tunisienne

[1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 531, CA;

affirming [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep

AIG Group v Ethniki, The [2000] 2

All ER 566, CA; affirming [1998]

Akai v People’s Insurance [1998] 1Lloyd’s Rep 90 267, 274, 311

Al H v F [2001] 1 FCR 385, CA

401, 402, 413

Albazero, The [1977] AC 774, HL;reversing [1974] 2 All ER 906

x

Table of cases

Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim

[1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 589, CA,

affirming [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep

Atlas Shipping Agency v Suisse

Atlantique [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep

188 72, 84, 102

Attock Cement v Romanian Bank

for Foreign Trade [1989] 1 WLR

BCCHK v Sonali Bank [1995] 1Lloyd’s Rep 22 280

BRAC Rent-A-Car International, Re[2003] 1 WLR 1421 442

Babanaft International v Bassatne[1990] Ch 13, CA 203

Bank of Dubai v Abbas [1997] ILPr

Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi v BaskanGida [2004] ILPr 26 68, 95, 96,

320, 321, 354

Batthyany v Walford (1887) 36 Ch

D 269 378

Bautrading v Nordling [1997] 3 All

Bristow Helicopters Ltd v Silorsky

Aircraft Corp [2004] EWHC 401

276, 290, 323

Caledonia Sunsea v Microperi[2003] SC 70, Inner House;affirming [2001] SCLR 634

Canada Trust v Stolzenberg (No 2)[2002] 1 AC 1, HL; affirming[1998] 1 WLR 547, CA

Casio Computer v Sayo [2001] ILPr

Chagos Islanders v Attorney General

[2004] EWCA Civ 997; affirming

Crédit Suisse v Cuoghi [1998] QB

818, CA 199, 202, 203

Crédit Suisse v MLC [1999] 1Lloyd’s Rep 767 192

Crédit Suisse Financial Products vSGE [1997] ILPr 165 157

D v P [1998] 2 FLR 25 188

DC v WOC, 5 July 2000(unreported) 50

Derby v Weldon [1990] Ch 65, CA;

affirming Times, 15 November

Durham v T & N, 1 May 1996(unreported), CA 303

EMI v Watterbach [1992] 1 QB 115

208, 209

East West Corp v DKBS 1912[2003] 2 All ER 700, CA;affirming [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep

182 293

Edmunds v Simmonds [2001] 1WLR 1003 341, 344, 353, 374

Egon Oldendorff v Libera Corp[1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 64; [1996]

Ertel Bieber v Rio Tinto [1918] AC

260 293, 305

European Capital Trade Finance Ltd

v Antenna Hungaria, 23 February

Financial Services Authority v Dobb

White & Co [200] BPIR 479

442

Finnish Marine Insurance v

Protective National Insurance

Frans Maas Logistics v CDR

Trucking [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep

Griggs v Evans [2004] EWHC 1088

136, 137, 143, 145

Iran Continental Shelf Oil Co v IRIInternational Corp [2002] EWCACiv 1024, CA 285, 287

Iran Vojdan, The [1984] 2 Lloyd’sRep 380 276

Ispahani v Bank Melli Iran [1998]Lloyd’s Rep Bank 133, CA 306

Ivan Zagubanski, The [2002] 1Lloyd’s Rep 106 32, 33, 35

J, Re [1990] 2 AC 562 401, 402, 413

JP Morgan Europe Ltd v Primacom

James Burrough Distillers v

Speymalt Whisky Distributors

Kenburn Waste Management v

Bergmann [2002] ILPr 33, CA;

Komninos S, The [1991] 1 Lloyd’sRep 370, CA 171, 279, 303

Konkola Copper Mines v Coromin[2005] EWHC 898 54, 173

Kribi, The [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 76

Lesotho Highlands Development

Libyan Arab Foreign Bank v

Bankers Trust [1988] 1 Lloyd’s

Rep 259 307

Libyan Arab Foreign Bank v

Manufacturers Hanover Trust (No

MBM Fabri-Clad v Eisen und

Huttenwerke Thale [2000] ILPr

Marc Rich v Impianti (No 2) [1992]

1 Lloyd’s Rep 624, CA 175

Marconi Communications v PanIndonesia Bank [2005] EWCACiv 422, CA; affirming [2004] 1Lloyd’s Rep 594 280, 285, 287

McFeetridge v Stewarts & Lloyds

Medway Packaging v Meurer

Maschinen [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep

Metall und Rohstoff v Donaldson

Lufkin & Jenrette [1990] QB 391,

Modus Vivendi v Sanmex [1996]FSR 790 96

Molins v GD [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep

Morin v Bonhams & Brooks [2004]

1 Lloyd’s Rep 702, CA; affirming[2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 36

Neste Chemicals v DK Line [1994]

3 All ER 180 184

New Hampshire Insurance Co vStrabag Bau [1992] 1 Lloyd’sRep 361 115

Newmarch v Newmarch [1978] Fam

79 235

OT Africa Line v Magic Sportswear

Corp [2005] EWCA Civ 710

123

Provimi v Aventis [2003] EWHC

961 167

Prudential Assurance Co Ltd vPrudential Insurance Co ofAmerica [2003] 1 WLR 2295,

Raiffeisen Zentralbank v National

Bank of Greece [1999] 1 Lloyd’s

Rayner v Davies [2003] 1 All ER

(Comm) 394, CA; affirming

Royal Bank of Scotland v Cassa diRisparmio delle ProvincieLombard [1992] WL 895017, CA

Samcrete v Land Rover [2001]EWCA Civ 2019 281, 283, 286,

Sayers v International Drilling

Spilada, The [1987] 1 AC 460 49, 53

Spurrier v La Cloche [1902] AC 445

279

Standard Steamship Owners’Protection and IndemnityAssociation (Bermuda) Ltd v GIEVision Bail [2004] EWHC 2919

233, 245

TXU Europe German Finance BV,

Re [2005] BPIR 209 441

Union Transport v Continental Lines[1992] 1 WLR 15, HL; affirming[1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 48, CA

Volvox Hollandia, The [1988] 2Lloyd’s Rep 361, CA 105

Von Mitchke-Collande v Kramer[2005] EWHC 977 208, 246

Welex v Rosa Maritime [2003] 2

Lloyd’s Rep 509, CA; affirming

Bier v Mines de Potasse d’Alsace21/76 [1976] ECR 1735 90, 94

Blanckaert & Willems v Trost139/80 [1981] ECR 819 100

Brenner v Dean Witter Reynolds 318/93 [1994] ECR I-4275 113, 173

C-Brennero v Wendel 258/83 [1984]ECR 3971 247, 248

CHW v GJH 25/81 [1982] ECR

1189 25, 26, 174, 198, 397, 431

Capelloni v Pelkmans 119/84 [1985]

ECR 3147 238, 242, 243, 249

Carron v Germany 198/85 [1986]ECR 2437 240

Castelletti v Trumpy C-159/97[1999] ECR I-1597 160–63,

166, 167, 169

Commission v Spain C-70/03 [2004]ECR I-7999 317

Coreck Maritime v Handelsvreem 387/98 [2000] ECR I-9337 54,

Kommunikation C-18/02 [2004]ECR I-1417 17, 90, 92, 335

Dansommer v Götz C-8/98 [2000]ECR I-111 137–9

Estasis Salotti v RÜWA 24/76[1976] ECR 1831 157

Farrell v Long C-295/95 [1997]ECR I-1683 26

Firma P v Firma K 178/83 [1984]ECR 3033 246

Frahuil v Assitalia C-265/02 [2004]ECR I-1543 23, 71, 72, 332

Freistaat Bayern v Blijdenstein 433/01 [2004] ECR I-981

C-24, 332, 432, 433

Gabriel C-96/00 [2002] ECR I-6367

70, 122, 123, 125, 312, 313

Gaillard v Chekili C-518/99 [2001]ECR I-2771 135

Gantner v Basch C-111/01 [2003]ECR I-4207 180

Gasser v MISAT C-116/02 [2003]ECR I-14693 34, 35, 179, 185,

Group Josi v UGIC C-412/98 [2000]ECR I-5925 45, 47, 58, 115,

168, 173

Groupe Concorde v SuhadiwarnoPanjan, The C-440/97 [1999]ECR I-6307 46, 76, 80–83

Gruber v Bay Wa C-464/01 [2005]ECR I-439 123, 125, 126, 313, 314

Gubisch v Palumbo 144/86 [1987]ECR 4861 180, 236

216, 224, 226, 234, 448

Kronhofer v Maier C-168/02 [2004]ECR I-6009 91, 349

Kvaerner v Staatssecretaris vanFinanciën C-191/99 [2001] ECRI-4447 324

Maciej Rataj, The C-406/92 [1994]

Marseille Fret v Seatrano ShippingC-24/02 [2002] ECR I-3383

Maersk Olie & Gas v de Haan & de

Boer C-39/02 [2004] ECR I-9657

Overseas Union Insurance Ltd v

New Hampshire Insurance Co

Renault v Maxicar C-38/98 [2000]ECR I-2973 215, 225

Réunion Européenne v Spliethoff’sBevrachtingskantoor C-51/97[1998] ECR I-6511 71, 72, 87,

Rutten v Cross Medical C-383/95[1997] ECR I-57 130, 319

SISRO v Ampersand C-432/93[1995] ECR I-2269 248

St Paul Dairy Industries v UnibelExser C-104/03 [2005] ECR I-

3481 199

Sanders v Van der Putte 73/77[1977] ECR 2383 68, 137

Sanicentral v Collin 25/79 [1979]ECR 3423 42, 128, 166

Scania v Rockinger C-522/03 [2006]ILPr 1 232

Scherrens v Maenhout 158/87[1988] ECR 3791 136, 139

Schotte v Parfums Rothschild218/86 [1987] ECR 4905 101

Segoura v Bonakdarian 25/76 [1976]ECR 1851 126, 158, 159, 314

Shearson Lehman Hutton v TVB 89/91 [1993] ECR I-139 87,

C-100, 114, 122, 123

Sierra Leone Telecommunications v

Barclays Bank [1998] 2 All ER

Cooper v Casey (1995) 18 Fam LR

433, Family Court 402

Corcoran v Corcoran [1974] VR 164

342

Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick

Assurances Rhône-Méditerranée vCOSCO, 16 January 1996, Court

Berlit Staudt v Co d’Assurancel’Alsacienne, 18 October 1989,Court of Cassation 106

Brasserie du Pêcheur vKreissparkasse Main-Spessart, 14May 1996, Court of Cassation

Mutuelle Parisienne de Garantie v

Delfino, 24 March 1987, Court of

Schumacher v Technic-Equipement,

19 February 1979, Court ofCassation 170

Stadtwerke Essen v Trailigaz [1988]ECC 291, Paris Court of Appeal

162

Stork Colorproofing v Ofmag, 23February 1994, Court ofCassation 157

Thompson Hayward v Sirena [1988]ECC 319, Court of Cassation

Consignment of Italian Wine, Re[1988] ECC 159, Supreme Court

75, 92

Enforcement of a SwissMaintenance Agreement, Re[1988] ECC 181 210, 212, 433

Grand Canaries [1997] NJW 1697,Supreme Court 315

Jurisdiction in Contract and Tort, Re[1988] ECC 415, Supreme Court

96, 143

Opening of Insolvency Proceedings,

Re [2005] ILPr 4 445 Ireland

Barnaby v Mullen [1997] 2 ILRM

341, Supreme Court 243, 244

Casey v Ingersoll-Rand [1996] 2ILRM 456 95

Daly v Irish Group Travel [2003]

ES, Re, 20 November 1997

(unreported), High Court 414

Ewins v Carlton Television [1997] 2

Hongkong and Shanghai BankingCorp v United Overseas Bank[1992] 2 SLR 495, HC 379

Thahir v Pertamina [1994] 3 SLR

257, CA 377, 378, 379 United States

Advanced Bionics v Medtronic 59P3d 231 (California, 2002)

196

Alabama Great Southern Railroad

Co v Carroll 11 So 803(Alabama, 1892) 350

American Motorists Ins Co vARTRA Group 659 A 2d 1295(Md, 1995) 271

Arnett v Thompson 433 SW2d 109(Kentucky, 1968) 342

Babcock v Jackson 191 NE2d 279(1963) 341, 342

Baker v General Motors 522 US 222(1998) 196

Baldwin v Iowa State TravellingMen’s Assoc 283 US 522 (1931)

218

Brown v Church of the Holy Name

of Jesus 252 A2d 176 (RhodeIsland, 1969) 342

Bryant v Silverman 703 P2d 1190(Arizona, 1985) 342

Chila v Owens 348 FSupp 1207(1972) 346

Clark v Clark 222 A2d 205 (New

Gilbert v Seton Hall University 332

F3d 105 (C2 for New York, 2003)

Hart v American Airlines 304NYS2d 810 (1969) 210

Haumschild v Continental Casualty

95 NW2d 814 (Wisconsin, 1959)

342

Heath v Zellmer 151 NW2d 664(Wisconsin, 1967) 342

Heron v Heron 703 NE2d 712(1998) 217

Hunker v Royal Indemnity Co 204NW2d 897 (Wisconsin, 1973)

Lops v Lops 140 F3d 927 (C11,1998) 413

Maly v Genmar Industries 1996 WL

Milliken v Meyer 311 US 457(1940) 218

Mozes v Mozes 19 FSupp 2d 1108(1998) 401, 413

Mullane v Central Hanover Bank &

Schultz v Boy Scouts of America

480 NE2d 679 (New York 1985)

342

Sexton v Ryder 320 NW2d 843(Michigan, 1982) 342

Slagenweit v Slagenweit 841 FSupp

264 (1993) 413

Stockmen’s Livestock Exchange vThompson 520 NW2d 255 (SouthDakota, 1994) 300

Sun Oil v Wortman 486 US 717(1988) 302

Taylor v Bullock 279 A2d 585 (NewHampshire, 1971) 342

Thompson v Thompson 193 A2d 439

Vimar Seguros Y Reaseguros v M/VSky Reefer 515 US 528 (1995)

Wilcox v Wilcox 133 NW2d 408(Wisconsin, 1965) 342

World-Wide Volkswagen v Woodson

444 US 286 (1980) 92

Zelinger v State Sand and Gravel Co

156 NW2d 466 (Wisconsin,1968) 342

Race Relations Act 1976

Private International Law Act 1987

United States Civil Code (Louisiana) 343

US Constitution 217

28 US Code s 1404(a) 180

28 US Code s 1738 433

Bretton Woods Agreements Order

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act

1982 (Interim Relief) Order

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments

(Authentic Instruments and

Court Settlements) Order

r 74.9(3) 244

European Communities (Jurisdiction

and Judgments in Matrimonial

and Parental Responsibility

(Matrimonial and Parental

Responsibility Jurisdiction and