94:, or, he who acts (the plaintiff) must follow the forum (or jurisdiction) of the thing involved (the subject of the lawsuit, meaning the defendant). This rule is presented in Article 2(1) (2012 recast: Article 4(1)) of the Regulation that âpersons domiciled in a Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member Stateâ. The law leans in favour of the defendant, since it is âmore difficult, generally speaking, to defend oneself in the courts of a foreign country than in those of another town in the country where one is domiciledâ. Furthermore, Article 2(2) of the Regulation embodies the "principle of equality of treatment" by stating that 'persons who are not nationals of the Member State in which they are domiciled shall be governed by the rules of jurisdiction applicable to nationals of that State'. Although this is the 'general' jurisdictional rule of the Regulation, it only comes after the other articles in hierarchy and allows for many exceptions, making its general character rather relative; however, the latter is still reflected throughout the Regulation in the way how all exceptions to this rule must be interpreted strictly.
192:
purpose however, the mere fact that for instance a clause conferring jurisdiction is printed among the general conditions on the reverse of the contract, is not sufficient on its own, since âno guarantee is thereby given that the other party has really consentedâ. Second, one can reach a choice of forum agreement 'in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves'; in this situation, an oral agreement can for example be sufficient, if it "forms part of a continuing trading relationship" and that "the dealings taken as a whole are governed by the general conditions of the party giving the confirmation". Indeed, in that scenario, it would be "contrary to good faith" for the recipient of the confirmation to deny the existence of a jurisdiction conferred by consent, "even if he had given no acceptance in writing". The third way to prorogate jurisdiction is, in the hypothesis of international trade or commerce, through a 'form which accords with a usage of which parties are or ought to have been aware and which in such a trade or commerce is widely known'.
228:(ECJ) considers it as an "independent" and thus 'European' concept, a clear or uniform definition. The only thing present are definitions given in ECJ case-law that are rather abstract, consequently leaving parties in unclear cases to wait until the ECJ decides the matter. Second, 'the place of performance' lacks an independent European concept as well. However, unlike 'matters relating to a contract', the Regulation does contain a harmonisation of 'the place of performance' for two categories of (common) contracts in Article 5(1)b of the Regulation: sale of goods and the provision of services. However, Article 5(1)c (2012 recast: Article 7(1)c) of the Regulation defines that if the conditions for Article 5(1)b (2012 recast: Article 7(1)b) are not fulfilled, the standard provision of Article 5(1)a is applicable again, making the national law for defining âthe place for performanceâ, in the absence of a uniform concept, take over.
167:
broadened sense of domicile the other way around. For example, Article 18 of the
Regulation states that a consumer may bring proceedings against the other party in both the Member State in which that party is domiciled as the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled, while at the same time providing that proceedings against a consumer may only be brought in the courts in the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled. Furthermore, when a 'stronger' party has no domicile in any Member State, but merely a "branch, agency or other establishment" in one of the Member States, it will be "deemed to be domiciled in that Member State". Lastly, an additional safeguard is installed by providing further mandatory rules governing an agreement that would deviate from the previously mentioned rules.
150:
suing the defendant in a Member State that initially does not have jurisdiction; if the defendant shows up and does not plead that the court has no jurisdiction, the court will have jurisdiction from then on. The main rationality behind this provision is legal certainty, for it acts as an implicit choice of forum clause: the plaintiff gives his consent to the choice of new forum by initiating the procedure, while the defendant consents by appearing and not pleading lack of jurisdiction. Apart from the situation in which the defendant explicitly contests jurisdiction, Article 24 furthermore states that the rule of jurisdiction by appearance is not applicable whenever the exclusivity of the above-mentioned
Article 22 comes into picture.
274:
to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedingsâ. As a consequence, Article 28(2) of the
Regulation defines that any court other than the court first seised may, on the application of one of the parties, decline jurisdiction in favour of the first court for actions pending at first instance. Fitting in the general objective of avoiding conflicting judgments and facilitating proper administration, ârelated actionsâ must be interpreted broadly; therefore, all cases that carry a risk of conflicting judgments, even if the judgments can be separately enforced and have no mutually exclusive legal consequences, can be considered related cases for the purposes of this article.
141:
halting the nuisance coming from an immovable property does not fall under the provision's scope. And with regards to the second exception; e.g. only challenging the validity of a decision of an organ of a company under the company law applicable or under the provisions governing the functions of its organs, as laid down in its
Articles of Association, can warrant exclusivity, and not for example, the manner in which power is exercised by an organ of the company. Or finally, take the final exception with regards to the enforcement of judgments; only judgments can fall under the scope of the provision, and not say, preparatory steps such as freezing injunctions.
171:
in
Article 15(1) of the Regulation (2012 recast: 17(1)). Third, the consumer contract must be concluded with a consumer, implying that the concerning party is a âprivate final consumer not engaged in trade or professional activitiesâ. As this protection is an exception to the general rule, it is the person invoking the protection to prove that he is a consumer, and if there is business and personal use to his purchase, to prove that âthe business use is only negligibleâ. The court must not only take into consideration the "content, nature and purpose" of the contract, but also the "objective circumstances in which it was concluded".
184:
that there must be safeguards to ensure that a party actually consented to the choice of forum, and on the other hand, "excessive formality which is incompatible with commercial practice" should be avoided, stressing the importance of not sacrificing too much of the swiftness of commercial practice. Keeping this in mind, there must be a "true agreement" between the parties in every manner of drafting the choice of forum clause, while at the same time, the court cannot "necessarily deduce from a document in writing" that there was in fact an oral agreement. As stated in the
67:: the rules which courts of European Union Member States use to determine if they have jurisdiction in cases with links to more than one country in the European Union. The basic principle is that the court in the member state of the party that gets sued has jurisdiction, while other grounds exist, which are diverse in content and scope, and are often classified in descending order of exclusivity and specificity. The original Brussels Regulation (44/2001) is, with regard to jurisdiction rules, very similar to the 2007
287:
jurisdictional rules of the
Brussels I Regulation do not regulate provisional measures; consequently, the competent court of any Member State may give such measures âwithout regard to the rules of jurisdiction laid down in the Conventionâ. However, importantly, the measures given must be provisional only: they must be âintended to preserve a factual or legal situation so as to safeguard rights the recognition of which is sought elsewhere from the court having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matterâ.
1184:
1194:
30:
137:"should preferably be applied only by the courts of the country in which it is in force" to interests of "legal certainty", with the goal to "avoid conflicting judgments". Sometimes however it is plainly clear why exclusive jurisdiction is needed; take for example the validity of entries in public registers.
183:
This provision, of which the Jenard Report states that it is âunnecessary to stress the importance (...), especially in commercial relationsâ, tries to strike a balance between two interests. On the one hand, it tries to "cancel out the effects of clauses in contracts which might go unread", implying
191:
The article provides three different methods of reaching a choice of forum agreement, which can be both formal and less formal, consistent with commercial practice. The first route to reach a choice of forum agreement, is through âwriting or evidenced in writingâ; consistent with the above-mentioned
170:
To be regarded as consumer contracts, several requirements must be met. First, there has to be a contract between parties, implying that there are âreciprocal and interdependent obligations between the two partiesâ. Secondly, there has to be a consumer contract, referring to the conditions set forth
166:
The special protection these articles provide has as a main effect the broadening of the domicile of the 'stronger' party, so that the 'weaker' party, be it the consumer, employer or insured individual, has an increased range of locations for suing the first, while at the same time not allowing this
273:
Second, Article 28 (2012 recast: Article 30) of the
Regulation functions as a sort of âsafety-netâ for actions which do not meet the above-mentioned requirements, but where the actions are nonetheless ârelatedâ: âthey are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together
261:
Chapter II, Section 9 of the
Regulation deals with the hypothesis of lis pendens and related actions. The common objective and background rationality of all these articles is to "avoid the risk of conflicting judgments and thus to facilitate the proper administration of justice in the Community" by
223:
Article 5(1)a (2012 recast: Article 7(1)a) of the
Regulation states that the plaintiff may sue the defendant, domiciled in another Member State, âin matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in questionâ. This provision is slightly problematic on a
140:
Because exclusivity is an exception in the
Brussels regime, it must interpreted as being such: strictly. For example, an action with regards to the first exception of immovable property must strictly be based on a right in rem, which consequently means that a preventive action geared solely towards
158:
The Regulation provides special rules for insurance, consumer and employment contracts which may permit the "weaker party" to these contracts â i.e. insurance policy holders, consumers and employees â to sue in their state of domicile. The Regulation also provides that where a defendant to such an
249:
Article 4 of the Regulation (2012 recast: Article 6) provides the rule of residual jurisdiction; it allows the plaintiff to sue the defendant, who is not domiciled in any Member State, under the national jurisdictional rules of the Member State in which the plaintiff himself is domiciled, without
240:
Article 6 of the Regulation (2012 recast: Article 8) provides a legal basis for the plaintiff of a multipartite case or case with consolidated claims to sue defendants in another Member State than their domicile, for example where the original claim is pending in case of a counter-claim or in any
149:
Article 24 of the Regulation (2012 recast: Article 26(1)) defines another ground for a national court to stay or decline proceedings by setting forth that a court of a Member State before which a defendant enters an appearance shall have jurisdiction. This deals with the hypothesis of a plaintiff
136:
in this situation, and consequently, when a national court is seised that does not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction, it must decline jurisdiction. This exceptional case of exclusivity is justified in various ways; ranging from the presence of special legislation which, due to its complexity,
277:
Finally, Article 29 (2012 recast: Article 31(1)) of the Regulation states that when actions fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of more than one court, any other court than the first seised must decline jurisdiction in favour of that court. This can for example happen under the ancillary rule
216:
The Articles 5 to 7 of the Regulation (2012 recast: Articles 7- 9) constitute a âsupplementâ to the general jurisdictional rule as laid down in Article 2 of the Regulation. They provide the plaintiff with an extra option to sue the defendant in another Member State than that of his domicile. The
131:
The term âregardless of domicileâ implies on the one hand that only the subject-matter of the action is relevant for jurisdiction, but not to the residence of the defendant. More specifically, the principal subject-matter of the action must fall within the scope of Article 22. On the other hand,
86:
The Regulation sets out a finite number of exceptions from this general principle. Most of these exceptions are optional and enable plaintiffs to sue in a place other than the defendant's jurisdiction without requiring them to. However others are exclusive and preclude plaintiffs from suing in a
236:
case, the ECJ specified that the expression âplace where the harmful event occurredâ can encompass both âthe place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to itâ. Although this specification can be very helpful to the case, its implications, such as the possibility of a
195:
Establishing whether or not a 'true agreement' has been reached between parties remains a factual question which has to be decided by the national courts; consequently, it is up to the Member States to decide how to address the substantive validity of choice of forum agreements, making the same
179:
The Article 23 of the Regulation (2012 recast: Article 25) regulates the right of parties to determine (within boundaries) the court which professional parties may choose (prorogation of jurisdiction or choice of forum). The article stipulates that unless the parties have agreed otherwise, this
199:
Even when a clear choice of court agreement is in place (and thus only that court would have exclusive jurisdiction), that court must stay its proceedings if another court within the Brussels regime was seized earlier until that court has determined that it has no jurisdiction according to the
231:
Article 5(3) of the Regulation (2012 recast: Article 7(2)) gives the plaintiff, in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, the option to sue the defendant in the courts for the place where the âharmful event occurred or may occurâ, in other words, the forum delicti commissi. In the
162:
The underlying rationality for dealing with this matter under the Regulation is that failure to do so âmight not only have caused recognition and enforcement to be refused in certain cases on grounds of public policy, (...) contrary to the principle of free movement, but also (...) a general
286:
Finally, Article 31 of the Regulation (2012 recast: Article 35) states that courts of one Member State may give provisional, including protective, measures although courts in another Member State have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter. This is an expression of the fact that the
250:
affecting the application of the Articles 22 and 23 of the Regulation (2012 recast: Articles 24 and 25). This residual jurisdictional rule is justified on two grounds; first, to âensure the free movement of judgmentsâ, and second, to âperform a function in the case of lis pendensâ (infra).
71:(which applies when the dispute has links to more than one party the convention), containing the same provisions with the same numbering. Numbering and certain substantial issues are different in the 2012 recast version of the Regulation, which has applied since 1 January 2015 (1215/2012).
217:
justification for this broadening of the general jurisdictional rule, and at the same time the necessary condition for it, is the existence of a "close connecting factor between the dispute and the court with jurisdiction to resolve it", or simply a "close link".
269:
rule: proceedings involving the same cause and between the same parties brought in the courts of different Member States must be stayed until the jurisdiction of the court first seised has been established, after which it must decline jurisdiction.
262:
preventing that the same or related actions be decided upon by courts in different Member States. For the purposes of the articles under this section, Article 30 (2012 recast: Article 32(1)) defines what it constitutes for a court to be âseisedâ.
102:
Article 22 of the Regulation (2012 recast: Article 24) enumerates five specific cases in which the courts of a member state have jurisdiction regardless of the domicile of the parties to the action: plaintiff or defendant. These are:
278:
regarding holiday housing in Article 22(1) of the Regulation (2012 recast: Article 24(1)) that gives both the Member State in which the holiday house is situated jurisdiction as the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled.
180:
jurisdiction is exclusive; however, unlike the exclusivity under Article 22 of the Regulation (2012 recast: Article 24), a judgment denying a choice of court agreement or its conditions cannot be refused recognition.
241:
Member State a group of defendants whose claims are closely connected. The rationality behind this is to âobviate the handing down in the Contracting States of judgments which are irreconcilable with one anotherâ.
163:
re-examination of the jurisdiction of the court of the State of originâ. Consequently, article 35 of the Regulation defines that no judgment will be recognised contrary to these special rules for protection.
844:"Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast)"
159:
action is domiciled outside of the EU but has a "branch, agency or other establishment" in the EU, it shall be deemed to be domiciled where the "branch, agency or other establishment" is located.
204:
doctrine. The new Article 31(2) in the 2012 recast regulation allows courts to take jurisdiction in such cases even if it is not the court first seized. This clause is consistent with the 2005
1142:
1075:
676:
This is when there is no sale or provision of services, or if the parties have agreed otherwise, or when the sale or provision of services is situated outside of any Member State.
110:
In disputes concerning the validity of the constitution, the nullity or the dissolution of legal persons or their decisions, exclusive jurisdiction is held by courts where the
79:
The general principle of the Regulation is that individuals should only be sued in their member state of domicile. Domicile under the Regulation is not equivalent to the
220:
Article 5 (2012 recast: Article 7) of the Regulation deals with several categories of special jurisdiction, of which the most common are probably torts and contracts.
117:
In disputes concerning the validity of entries in public registers, exclusive jurisdiction is held by the courts of the member state in which the register is kept.
188:
case, "the validity of the clauses conferring jurisdiction must be strictly construed" to ensure that "the consensus between the parties is in fact established".
976:
863:
834:
205:
1068:
830:"Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters"
107:
In disputes concerning the ownership of and rights in land and tendencies in land, exclusive jurisdiction is held by courts where the land is situated.
954:
932:
910:
888:
848:
1061:
950:"Nicole Hassett v South Eastern Health Board and Cheryl Doherty v North Western Health Board (Court of Justice of the European Communities)"
1228:
127:
In disputes concerning the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the member state in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced.
1044:
1015:
303:
124:, designs, or other registrable rights, the courts of the member state in which the registration has been applied for or registered.
972:"Mario Reichert, Hans-Heinz Reichert and Ingeborg Kockler v Dresdner Bank AG (Court of Justice of the European Communities)"
237:
multitude of fora, have led to a rather extensive case-law governing the subject, making this provision a complex matter.
208:, which the Union has signed, and for which the approval regulation is currently evaluated by the European Parliament.
1223:
1187:
476:
This only includes the insurance and consumer contracts, but not the newly inserted category of employment contracts.
1218:
1084:
225:
1007:
858:
307:
17:
859:"Report on the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters"
1148:
1114:
712:
See for example the Dumez France case, the Marinari case, the Shevill case and the eDate advertising case.
60:
1197:
392:
971:
927:
905:
883:
829:
884:"Color Drack GmbH v Lexx International Vertriebs GmbH (Court of Justice of the European Communities)"
133:
949:
1169:
843:
1193:
1053:
1164:
1136:
395:. This is justified in the Hacker v Euro-Relais case, because they are "closely bound up". (§8)
1130:
1040:
1032:
1011:
68:
1001:
391:
The exception to this strictness are the tenancies in immovable property, which constitute
224:
theoretical level in two ways. First, âmatters relating to a contractâ lacks, although the
1102:
310:, 2008, 65 and Van Calster, G., European Private Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013, 51.
1088:
80:
1212:
111:
906:"Petra Engler v Janus Versand GmbH (Court of Justice of the European Communities)"
1108:
201:
503:
Articles 13, 17 and 21 of the Regulation (2012 recast: Articles 15, 19 and 23).
175:
Agreements on jurisdiction ('choice of court' or 'prorogation of jurisdiction')
494:
Articles 9, 15 and 18 of the Regulation (2012 recast: Articles 11, 17 and 20).
121:
29:
337:
Van Calster, G., European Private Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013, 85â86.
265:
First, Article 27 (2012 recast: Article 29) of the Regulation contains the
87:
place other than that of the member state conferred with the jurisdiction.
928:"Johann Gruber v Bay Wa AG (Court of Justice of the European Communities)"
793:
Van Calster, G., European Private Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013, 112.
766:
Van Calster, G., European Private Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013, 106.
739:
Van Calster, G., European Private Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013, 104.
548:
Contrary to Article 35(1) of the Regulation (2012 recast: Article 45(1e)).
694:
Van Calster, G., European Private Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013, 92.
685:
Van Calster, G., European Private Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013, 91.
658:
Van Calster, G., European Private Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013, 87.
619:
Van Calster, G., European Private Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013, 83.
589:
Van Calster, G., European Private Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013, 81.
539:
Van Calster, G., European Private Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013, 78.
458:
Van Calster, G., European Private Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013, 61.
449:
Van Calster, G., European Private Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013, 60.
413:
Van Calster, G., European Private Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013, 53.
382:
Van Calster, G., European Private Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013, 59.
364:
Van Calster, G., European Private Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013, 51.
114:
has its seat as determined by the rules of private international law.
811:
Case C-115/88 Mario Reichert et al v Dresdner Bank, , ECR 1â27, §34.
404:
Case C-115/88 Mario Reichert et al v Dresdner Bank, , ECR 1â27, §11.
627:
625:
83:, but rather refers to a person's habitual or ordinary residence.
38: Brussels regulation, EU-Denmark agreement, Lugano convention
346:
Article 22(1) to (5) of the Regulation (2012 recast: Article 24).
196:
agreement possibly valid in one country and invalid in another.
174:
120:
In disputes concerning the registration or validity of patents,
1057:
775:
Article 28(3) of the Regulation (2012 recast: Article 30(3)).
580:
Article 23(1) a-c of the Regulation (2012 recast: 25(1) a-c).
703:
Case 21/76 Mines de Potasse dâAlsace, ECR 1735, summary.
431:
Case C-261/90 Reichert v Dresdner Bank, ECR 2149, §26.
784:
Case C 144/86 Gubisch Maschinenfabrik, ECR 4861, §51.
1157:
1123:
1095:
1069:
606:
604:
44: EU-Denmark agreement, Lugano convention
8:
977:Official Journal of the European Communities
864:Official Journal of the European Communities
835:Official Journal of the European Communities
721:See Article 6(1) and 6(3) of the Regulation.
640:Case C-386/05 Color Drack, ECR I-3699, §22.
154:Insurance, consumer and employment contracts
33:States applying Brussels regime instruments
18:Jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation
649:Case 34/82 Martin Peters, ECR 987, §§9â10.
422:Case C-372/07 Hassett, ECR 1â7403, §26â29.
282:Provisional, including protective, measures
206:Hague Choice of Court Agreements convention
1076:
1062:
1054:
757:Case C-406/92 The Tatry, ECR I-5439, §31.
598:Case 24/76 Colzani, ECR (1832) 1835, §9.
571:Case 24/76 Colzani, ECR (1832) 1835, §7.
558:
556:
554:
90:The general principle reflects the maxim
485:Articles 9, 16 and 19 of the Regulation.
28:
667:See Case 12/76 Tessili, ECR 1473, §14.
295:
955:Official Journal of the European Union
933:Official Journal of the European Union
911:Official Journal of the European Union
889:Official Journal of the European Union
849:Official Journal of the European Union
823:Regulations and official commentaries
530:Case C-464/01 Gruber ECR I-439, §47.
521:Case C-464/01 Gruber ECR I-439, §46.
7:
512:Case C-27/02 Engler ECR I-481, §34.
610:Case 25/76 Segoura, ECR 1851; §11.
25:
1192:
1183:
1182:
373:Report Jenard, OJ , C-59/35-36.
81:common law doctrine of domicile
1:
1139:(non-contractual obligations)
802:Report Jenard, OJ , C-59/42.
748:Report Jenard, OJ , C-59/20.
730:Report Jenard, OJ , C-59/27.
631:Report Jenard, OJ , C-59/22.
467:Report Jenard, OJ , C-59/28.
440:Report Jenard, OJ , C-59/38.
355:Report Jenard, OJ , C-59/34.
328:Report Jenard, OJ , C-59/19.
319:Report Jenard, OJ , C-59/18.
302:See for example Briggs, A.,
1188:Category:European Union law
936:(C-464/01). 20 January 2005
562:Report Jenard, OJ , C-59/38
1245:
1229:European Union regulations
958:(Câ372/07). 2 October 2008
914:(C-27/02). 20 January 2005
145:Jurisdiction by appearance
1178:
1133:(contractual obligations)
1085:Private international law
980:(C-261/90). 26 March 1992
226:European Court of Justice
234:Bier or Mines de Potasse
132:parties do not have the
92:Actor sequitur forum rei
1149:Maintenance obligations
1115:Maintenance obligations
1008:Oxford University Press
50: Lugano convention
1105:(civil and commercial)
892:(C-386/05). 3 May 2007
98:Exclusive jurisdiction
52:
1198:Portal:European Union
393:personal jurisdiction
245:Residual jurisdiction
65:jurisdictional regime
57:Brussels I Regulation
32:
1037:European Private Law
1003:The Conflict of Laws
304:The Conflict of Laws
212:Special jurisdiction
75:General jurisdiction
1039:. Hart Publishing.
838:(L-12): 1â23. 2001.
257:and related actions
1224:European Union law
1170:Taking of evidence
1165:Service of process
1000:A. Briggs (2013).
857:P. Jenard (1979).
53:
1206:
1205:
1033:Geert Van Calster
267:lis alibi pendens
69:Lugano Convention
16:(Redirected from
1236:
1219:Conflict of laws
1196:
1186:
1185:
1078:
1071:
1064:
1055:
1050:
1028:
1026:
1024:
1006:(3rd ed.).
989:
987:
985:
967:
965:
963:
945:
943:
941:
923:
921:
919:
901:
899:
897:
872:
853:
839:
812:
809:
803:
800:
794:
791:
785:
782:
776:
773:
767:
764:
758:
755:
749:
746:
740:
737:
731:
728:
722:
719:
713:
710:
704:
701:
695:
692:
686:
683:
677:
674:
668:
665:
659:
656:
650:
647:
641:
638:
632:
629:
620:
617:
611:
608:
599:
596:
590:
587:
581:
578:
572:
569:
563:
560:
549:
546:
540:
537:
531:
528:
522:
519:
513:
510:
504:
501:
495:
492:
486:
483:
477:
474:
468:
465:
459:
456:
450:
447:
441:
438:
432:
429:
423:
420:
414:
411:
405:
402:
396:
389:
383:
380:
374:
371:
365:
362:
356:
353:
347:
344:
338:
335:
329:
326:
320:
317:
311:
300:
49:
43:
37:
21:
1244:
1243:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1202:
1174:
1158:Legal procedure
1153:
1119:
1091:
1082:
1047:
1031:
1022:
1020:
1018:
999:
983:
981:
970:
961:
959:
948:
939:
937:
926:
917:
915:
904:
895:
893:
882:
856:
842:
828:
820:
815:
810:
806:
801:
797:
792:
788:
783:
779:
774:
770:
765:
761:
756:
752:
747:
743:
738:
734:
729:
725:
720:
716:
711:
707:
702:
698:
693:
689:
684:
680:
675:
671:
666:
662:
657:
653:
648:
644:
639:
635:
630:
623:
618:
614:
609:
602:
597:
593:
588:
584:
579:
575:
570:
566:
561:
552:
547:
543:
538:
534:
529:
525:
520:
516:
511:
507:
502:
498:
493:
489:
484:
480:
475:
471:
466:
462:
457:
453:
448:
444:
439:
435:
430:
426:
421:
417:
412:
408:
403:
399:
390:
386:
381:
377:
372:
368:
363:
359:
354:
350:
345:
341:
336:
332:
327:
323:
318:
314:
301:
297:
293:
284:
259:
247:
214:
177:
156:
147:
134:choice of forum
100:
77:
51:
47:
45:
41:
39:
35:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1242:
1240:
1232:
1231:
1226:
1221:
1211:
1210:
1204:
1203:
1201:
1200:
1190:
1179:
1176:
1175:
1173:
1172:
1167:
1161:
1159:
1155:
1154:
1152:
1151:
1146:
1140:
1134:
1127:
1125:
1121:
1120:
1118:
1117:
1112:
1106:
1099:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1089:European Union
1083:
1081:
1080:
1073:
1066:
1058:
1052:
1051:
1045:
1029:
1016:
996:
995:
991:
990:
968:
946:
924:
902:
879:
878:
874:
873:
854:
852:(L-351). 2012.
840:
825:
824:
819:
816:
814:
813:
804:
795:
786:
777:
768:
759:
750:
741:
732:
723:
714:
705:
696:
687:
678:
669:
660:
651:
642:
633:
621:
612:
600:
591:
582:
573:
564:
550:
541:
532:
523:
514:
505:
496:
487:
478:
469:
460:
451:
442:
433:
424:
415:
406:
397:
384:
375:
366:
357:
348:
339:
330:
321:
312:
294:
292:
289:
283:
280:
258:
252:
246:
243:
213:
210:
176:
173:
155:
152:
146:
143:
129:
128:
125:
118:
115:
108:
99:
96:
76:
73:
46:
40:
34:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1241:
1230:
1227:
1225:
1222:
1220:
1217:
1216:
1214:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1189:
1181:
1180:
1177:
1171:
1168:
1166:
1163:
1162:
1160:
1156:
1150:
1147:
1144:
1141:
1138:
1135:
1132:
1129:
1128:
1126:
1124:Choice of law
1122:
1116:
1113:
1110:
1107:
1104:
1101:
1100:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1079:
1074:
1072:
1067:
1065:
1060:
1059:
1056:
1048:
1046:9781849462419
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1019:
1017:9780199679270
1013:
1009:
1005:
1004:
998:
997:
993:
992:
979:
978:
973:
969:
957:
956:
951:
947:
935:
934:
929:
925:
913:
912:
907:
903:
891:
890:
885:
881:
880:
876:
875:
870:
866:
865:
860:
855:
851:
850:
845:
841:
837:
836:
831:
827:
826:
822:
821:
817:
808:
805:
799:
796:
790:
787:
781:
778:
772:
769:
763:
760:
754:
751:
745:
742:
736:
733:
727:
724:
718:
715:
709:
706:
700:
697:
691:
688:
682:
679:
673:
670:
664:
661:
655:
652:
646:
643:
637:
634:
628:
626:
622:
616:
613:
607:
605:
601:
595:
592:
586:
583:
577:
574:
568:
565:
559:
557:
555:
551:
545:
542:
536:
533:
527:
524:
518:
515:
509:
506:
500:
497:
491:
488:
482:
479:
473:
470:
464:
461:
455:
452:
446:
443:
437:
434:
428:
425:
419:
416:
410:
407:
401:
398:
394:
388:
385:
379:
376:
370:
367:
361:
358:
352:
349:
343:
340:
334:
331:
325:
322:
316:
313:
309:
305:
299:
296:
290:
288:
281:
279:
275:
271:
268:
263:
256:
253:
251:
244:
242:
238:
235:
229:
227:
221:
218:
211:
209:
207:
203:
197:
193:
189:
187:
181:
172:
168:
164:
160:
153:
151:
144:
142:
138:
135:
126:
123:
119:
116:
113:
109:
106:
105:
104:
97:
95:
93:
88:
84:
82:
74:
72:
70:
66:
62:
58:
31:
27:
19:
1111:(family law)
1096:Jurisdiction
1036:
1021:. Retrieved
1002:
982:. Retrieved
975:
960:. Retrieved
953:
938:. Retrieved
931:
916:. Retrieved
909:
894:. Retrieved
887:
868:
862:
847:
833:
807:
798:
789:
780:
771:
762:
753:
744:
735:
726:
717:
708:
699:
690:
681:
672:
663:
654:
645:
636:
615:
594:
585:
576:
567:
544:
535:
526:
517:
508:
499:
490:
481:
472:
463:
454:
445:
436:
427:
418:
409:
400:
387:
378:
369:
360:
351:
342:
333:
324:
315:
298:
285:
276:
272:
266:
264:
260:
254:
248:
239:
233:
230:
222:
219:
215:
198:
194:
190:
185:
182:
178:
169:
165:
161:
157:
148:
139:
130:
112:legal person
101:
91:
89:
85:
78:
64:
56:
54:
26:
1109:Brussels II
871:(C-59): 37.
255:Lis pendens
202:lis pendens
122:trade marks
63:contains a
1213:Categories
1103:Brussels I
818:References
306:, Oxford,
1145:(divorce)
291:Footnotes
61:1215/2012
1143:Rome III
1035:(2013).
1023:26 April
984:26 April
962:26 April
940:26 April
918:26 April
896:26 April
877:Case law
1137:Rome II
1087:of the
186:Colzani
1131:Rome I
1043:
1014:
48:
42:
36:
994:Books
59:(EU)
1041:ISBN
1025:2014
1012:ISBN
986:2014
964:2014
942:2014
920:2014
898:2014
55:The
308:OUP
1215::
1010:.
974:.
952:.
930:.
908:.
886:.
869:22
867:.
861:.
846:.
832:.
624:^
603:^
553:^
1077:e
1070:t
1063:v
1049:.
1027:.
988:.
966:.
944:.
922:.
900:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
