APPEALS

2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 499-544
Author(s):  
Roger O’Keefe
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Brussels Convention ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
House Of Lords

Appeals in cases noted in earlier numbers of the Journal have now been disposed of as shown: Aneco Reinsurance Underwriting Ltd. v. Johnson & Higgins Ltd., noted [2000] C.L.J. 446. Appeal dismissed: [2001] UKHL 51. Turner v. Grovit, noted [2000] C.L.J. 45. Question on the interpretation of the Brussels Convention of 1968 referred by the House of Lords to the European Court of Justice: [2001] UKHL 65, noted [2002] 1 All E.R. 960.

Party Autonomy in the Brussels I Regulation and Rome I Regulation and the European Court of Justice

2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 1505-1524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan-Jaap Kuipers
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Brussels Convention ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Rome Convention ◽  
The Status ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Rome I

The relationship between Community law and Private International Law (PIL) did not have an easy start. The original EEC Treaty merely made one reference to PIL. The notable exception was the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (1968), an international convention concluded on the basis of art. 220 EEC (293 EC). The Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (1980) did not even have an explicit legal basis. After the adoption of the Rome Convention it remained relatively silent on the Community level. It did not help that due to the status of international convention the European Court of Justice (ECJ) was deprived of any power of interpretation. The problem was resolved in two separate protocols. The protocol on the Brussels Convention entered into force in 1975 and the protocol on the Rome Convention only entered into force in 2004. Whereas there has been a substantial amount of case-law on the Brussels Convention, the ECJ only delivered its first judgment on the Rome Convention in October 2009.

I. Forum non conveniens and the Brussels Convention

2005 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 973-981 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter McEleavy ◽  
Gilles Cuniberti
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Brussels Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens

On 1 March 2005 the European Court of Justice in Owusu v Jackson held that the English doctrine of forum non conveniens was inconsistent with the Brussels Convention (the ‘Convention’) when a defendant was domiciled in the United Kingdom, even if the natural forum was in a Non-Contracting State.

STAYS AND THE EUROPEAN CONVENTIONS-END-GAME?

2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-58
Author(s):  
Richard Fentiman
Keyword(s):  
Buenos Aires ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Correct Solution ◽  
Primary Concern ◽  
English Court ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Court Of Appeal

MAY an English court, having jurisdiction under the Brussels or Lugano Convention, decline to entertain proceedings on the basis that a court in a non-Contracting State is the forum conveniens? Many would doubt it-can national law oust jurisdiction conferred by the Conventions? But the Court of Appeal famously decided otherwise in Re Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd. [1992] Ch. 72. The Conventions, it concluded, are designed to harmonise the jurisdictional rules of Contracting States only to the extent necessary to facilitate the enforcement of judgments between such States, their primary concern. That objective is unaffected if a case is eventually tried in a non-Contracting State, so stays in such cases are permitted. The House of Lords in Harrods referred the point to the European Court of Justice, but the case was settled, creating uncertainty about the correct solution, yet leaving all courts but the House of Lords bound by the Court of Appeal’s decision.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and Preliminary References to the European Court of Justice: An Opencast Constitutional Lab

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1529-1542
Author(s):  
Alessia Fusco
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
High Water ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Similar Remark

At the start of his paperKeeping Their Heads Above Water? European Law in the House of Lords, Anthony Arnull reports a judgment delivered by Lord Denning in 1979, in the early days of the process of the United Kingdom's European integration. It stated as follows:[The] flowing tide of the Community law is coming in fast. It has not stopped at high-water mark. It has broken the dykes and the banks. It has submerged the surrounding land. So much that we have to learn to become amphibious if we wish to keep our heads above water.Lord Denning made a similar remark in his judgment in Bulmer v. Bollinger, which was a pivotal case in the dialogue between the United Kingdom (UK) and European systems.

The Brussels Convention and Reparations - Remarks on the Judgment of the European Court of Justice in Lechouritou and others v. the State of the Federal Republic of Germany

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 417-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veronika Gärtner
Keyword(s):  
Federal Republic ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
The State ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Brussels Convention ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
Public Power ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
History Of

On 15 February 2007, the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the case Lechouritou and others v. the State of the Federal Republic of Germany. The case concerned the question whether compensation for acts perpetrated by armed forces in the course of warfare can be asserted on the basis of the jurisdictional rules provided for by the Brussels Convention. The Court held that such an action did not fall within the scope of the Convention since it could, due to its origin in sovereign acts, not be regarded as a civil matter in terms of Art. 1 Brussels Convention. Thus, jurisdiction for claims directed at the compensation for damages resulting from the exercise of public power cannot be based on the Brussels Convention. The analysis of the Court's ruling will proceed as follows: First, the history of the case as well as the essence of the judgment will be presented (infra B) before giving a review on the Court's previous case law on the concept of “civil matters” (infra C). This outline will be followed by an analysis and a classification of the ruling in the Court's jurisprudence (infra D), before eventually the results will be summarized (infra E).

Fighting for Authority: Strategic Actions of National High Courts in the European Union

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2-2019) ◽  
pp. 419-433
Author(s):  
Stefanie Vedder
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Principal Agent Theory ◽  
Strategic Actions ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Lower Courts

National high courts in the European Union (EU) are constantly challenged: the European Court of Justice (ECJ) claims the authority to declare national standing interpretations invalid should it find them incompatible with its views on EU law. This principle noticeably impairs the formerly undisputed sovereignty of national high courts. In addition, preliminary references empower lower courts to question interpretations established by their national ‘superiors’. Assuming that courts want to protect their own interests, the article presumes that national high courts develop strategies to elude the breach of their standing interpretations. Building on principal-agent theory, the article proposes that national high courts can use the level of (im-) precision in the wording of the ECJ’s judgements to continue applying their own interpretations. The article develops theoretical strategies for national high courts in their struggle for authority.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document