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.

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.

scholarly journals Interactions between European Court of Human Rights and Private International Law of European Union = Interacciones entre el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y Derecho Internacional Privado de la Unión Europea

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitris Liakopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Family Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Private Law ◽  
European Family

Abstract: The present work is concentrated on the analysis of the jurisprudence between the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice in the sector of private international law. In particular, it deals with the differences, similarities, influences, impact, etc. in the sector of family law, insolvency and succession according the Regulations and the private international law and last but not least the recognition of sentences by the European Member States.Keywords: European Court of Human Rights, International private law, European Court of Justice, European family law, insolvency, succession.Resumen: El presente trabajo se concentra en el análisis de la jurisprudencia entre el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y el Tribunal de Justicia Europeo en el sector del derecho internacional privado. En particular, aborda las diferencias, similitudes, influencias, impacto, etc., en el sector del derecho de familia, la insolvencia y la sucesión de acuerdo con el Reglamento y el Derecho internacional privado y, por último, el reconocimiento de condenas por parte de los Estados miembros europeos.Palabras clave: Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, Derecho Internacional Privado, Tribunal Europeo de Justicia, Derecho de Familia Europeo, insolvencia, sucesión.

scholarly journals Glosa do wyroku Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej z dnia 12 lutego 2015 r. w sprawie Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry c/a Elektrobudowa Spółka Akcyjna (C‑396/13)

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 191-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Witold Kurowski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Employment Relationships ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Polish Law ◽  
Rome I

This paper aims to comment an important ruling concerning the Posted Workers Directive (Directive 96/71/EC). In the judgement C-396/13 (Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry v. Elektrobudowa Spółka Akcyjna), the European Court of Justice providedits pro-worker’s interpretation of Art 3 of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the scope of the "minimum pay rate". The second issue raised by the European Court of Justice was the assignability of pay claims governed by Polish law based on Art 14 (2) of Rome I Regulation and prohibited under that law. In commented judgement, the Court admitted the assignment of claims arising from employment relationships in light of article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and accepted the trade union’s right to represent the posted workers.

scholarly journals Steigimosi laisvė po Cartesio bylos: ES inkorporavimo doktrinos trūkumas ir to padariniai

Teisė ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 75 ◽  
pp. 143-158
Author(s):  
Robertas Čiočys
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Freedom Of Establishment ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Real Seat

This article defines private international law doctrines of incorporation and real seat and then turns to the analysis of freedom of establishment guaranteed by the EC Treaty. The article analyses judgments of the European Court of Justice, interpreting the freedom of establishment in cases where companies tried to transfer their seats across frontiers, especially in light of the newest judgment in this area in the Cartesio case. The analysis of case law shows the link between the freedom of establishment and private international law doctrines. The article is concluded by a discussion of opportunities that free­dom of establishment provides for companies, alternatives for cross-border business restructurings and implications of rising number of these activities. Straipsnyje apibūdinamos tarptautinės privatinės teisės taikomos inkorporavimo ir buveinės doktri­nos ir tada analizuojama EB steigimo sutarties garantuojama steigimosi laisvė. Aptariama Europos Tei­singumo Teismo praktika interpretuojant steigimosi laisvę bylose, kai bendrovės bandė perkelti buveinę už valstybės ribų. Atsižvelgiant į tai, kaip supratimą keičia naujausia byla šioje srityje − Cartesio. Teis­mo praktikos analizė parodo steigimosi laisvės ir tarptautinės privatinės teisės doktrinų ryšį. Straipsnis baigiamas aptariant galimybes, kurias bendrovėms suteikia steigimosi laisvė, ir alternatyvas, kuriomis jos gali pasinaudoti, siekdamos pertvarkyti verslą, kai tai apima kelias valstybes, bei šio reiškinio dažnė­jimo padarinius.

scholarly journals Foreign overriding mandatory provisions under the regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (Rome I Regulation). Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 18 october 2016, case c-135/15 = Leyes de policía de terceros estados en el ámbito del reglamento (CE) No 593/2008 (Reglamento Roma I). Comentario a la STJUE de 18 de octubre de 2016, asunto c-135/15

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 873
Author(s):  
Alexander Kronenberg
Keyword(s):  
Case Note ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
European Court ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Rome I ◽  
Conflict Of Law

 Abstract: The role and treatment of foreign overriding mandatory provisions in international con­tract law have been subject to academic discussions for a long time. This has not changed with the introduction of Article 9 of the Rome I Regulation. In the judgment discussed in this case note, the Eu­ropean Court of Justice addressed some of the contentious issues in relation to Article 9(3) of the Rome I Regulation. This note examines and evaluates the solutions found by the ECJ and puts them into context. It also points out some questions the ECJ did not discuss; these questions remain open for now but will need to be addressed in the future.Keywords: Article 9(3) Rome I Regulation, foreign overriding mandatory provisions, conflict-of-law level consideration, substantive law level consideration, principle of sincere cooperation.Resumen: El tratamiento de las leyes de policía de terceros estados en derecho de contratos inter­nacionales ha sido objeto de la polémica desde hace tiempo. Esto no ha cambiado con la entrada en vigor del artículo 9 del Reglamento Roma I. Con la sentencia comentada el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea ha tratado algunas de la cuestiones debatidas respecto al artículo 9.3 del Reglamento Roma I. Este comentario analiza, evalúa y pone en contexto las soluciones encontradas por el TJUE. También aborda las cuestiones que no han sido comentadas por el TJUE; estas cuestiones permanecen abiertas por el momento pero deberán ser examinadas en el futuro.Palabras clave: leyes de policía de terceros estados, consideración en nivel conflictual, considera­ción en nivel sustantivo, principio de cooperación leal.

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.

The European Court of Justice and Citizenship of the European Union: New Developments Towards a Truly Fundamental Status

ICL Journal ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michaela Hailbronner ◽  
Sara Iglesias Sánchez
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
New Developments ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
New Development ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Eu Fundamental Rights

AbstractIn two recent, revolutionary decisions, - Janko Rottmann C-135/08 and Ruiz Zambrano C-34/09 - the European Court of Justice has firmly emancipated the status of citizenship of the Union from the “cross-border” requirement and has inaugurated a new area for the protection of rights closely linked to the core of sovereignty of States, - nationality and residence. This Article examines these two judgments and argues that they take the construction of citizenship towards a federal status. The “genuine enjoyment of the substance of citizenship rights” has emerged as a new legal category that is capable of providing a uniform and general protection and entails the affirmation of a core of rights of a supranational nature. This new development raises questions as to whether the ECJ's expansionist reading of citizenship constitutes a legitimate exercise of judicial power and as to what will be the relationship between citizenship and EU fundamental rights. We conclude by exploring the potential of the judgments analyzed in terms of placing Union citizenship at the center of the emergence of a constitutional patriotism in Europe.

Delegation, agency, and agenda setting in the European Community

1997 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A. Pollack
Keyword(s):  
European Integration ◽  
European Community ◽  
Regional Integration ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Traditional Schools ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Supranational Institutions ◽  
Causal Variable

Do supranational institutions matter—do they deserve the status of an independent causal variable—in the politics of the European Community (EC)? Does the Commission of the European Communities matter? Does the European Court of Justice (ECJ) or the European Parliament? Is the EC characterized by continued member state dominance or by a runaway Commission and an activist Court progressively chipping away at this dominance? These are some of the more important questions for our understanding of the EC and of European integration. They have divided the two traditional schools of thought in regional integration, with neofunctionalists generally asserting, and intergovernmentalists generally denying, any important causal role for supranational institutions in the integration process. By and large, however, neither neofunctionalism nor intergovernmentalism has generated testable hypotheses regarding the conditions under which, and the ways in which, supranational institutions exert an independent causal influence on either EC governance or the process of European integration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document