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.

Centros Ltd—A Complete U-Turn in the Right of Establishment for Companies?

2000 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 621-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Looijestijn-Clearie
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Member State ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Registered Office ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Right ◽  
A Company

InCentros Ltd and Erhvers-og Selskabsstyrelesen (hereinafter Centros),1 the European Court of Justice ruled that it is contrary to Article 52 (now Article 432) and Article 58 (now Article 48) of the EC Treaty for the authorities of a member State (in casu Denmark) to refuse to register a branch of a company formed under the law of another member State (in casu the United Kingdom) in which it has its registered office, even if the company concerned has never conducted any business in the latter State and intends to carry out its entire business in the State in which the branch is to be set up. By avoiding the need to form a company there it would thus evade the application of the rules governing the provision for and the paying-up of a minimum share capital in force in that State. According to the Court, this does not, however, prevent the authorities of the member State in which the branch is to be set up from adopting appropriate measures for preventing or penalising fraud, either with regard to the company itself, if need be in co-operation with the member State in which it was formed, or with regard to its members, where it has been determined that they are in fact attempting, by means of the formation of a company, to evade their obligations towards creditors established in the territory of the member State of the branch.

scholarly journals Time to Revisit Forum Non Conveniens in the UK? Group Josi Reinsurance Co v UGIC

2001 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 705
Author(s):  
Christopher D Bougen
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Question ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Conflicts Of Jurisdiction

There has been much debate in the United Kingdom over the last decade on whether the discretionary doctrine of forum non conveniens is compatible with the mandatory provisions of the Brussels Convention on jurisdiction issues in the European Union.  A recent decision of the European Court of Justice has answered affirmatively the question of whether a plaintiff domiciled in a non-Contracting State can invoke the rules of the Covention.  The Court has arguably not settled the more fundamental question of whether the Convention applies to conflicts of jurisdiction between courts of a Contracting State and non-Contracting State.  However, there is evidence of a growing acceptance of an expansive view of the scope of the Convention.  Such a development would bring welcome simplicity to cross-border litigation in the UK. 

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.

COURAGE V. CREHAN: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM OR CONSISTENT APPROACH?

2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albertina Albors-Llorens
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Activism ◽  
Community Rights ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Public House ◽  
European Court ◽  
A Company ◽  
Consistent Approach

IN Case C-453/99 Courage Ltd. v. Crehan (judgment of 20 September 2001, not yet reported), the European Court of Justice has been confronted once more with the difficult task of reconciling the effectiveness of Community rights with national rules on remedies. By virtue of a series of agreements between Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd. (IEL), a company which owned public house estates, and Courage Ltd., a brewery with a 19% share of the United Kingdom market in sales of beer, all IEL tenants were required to purchase the whole of their beer requirements exclusively from Courage Ltd. In 1993, Courage Ltd. brought an action for the recovery from Mr. Crehan, a tenant of IEL, of a sum of more than £15,000 for unpaid deliveries of beer. Mr. Crehan contended that the exclusive purchasing obligation was anti-competitive because Courage Ltd. sold its beers to independent tenants of public houses at substantially lower prices than those imposed on IEL tenants. He claimed that the beer tie was therefore contrary to Article 81(1) EC and sought damages for loss caused to him by the imposition of the beer tie. Carnwath J. dismissed the counter-claim and found in favour of Courage Ltd. (Courage Ltd. v. Crehan [1998] E.G.C.S. 171). Mr. Crehan appealed.

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.

Schengen, the European Court of Justice and Flexibility under the Lisbon Treaty: Balancing the United Kingdom's ‘Ins’ and ‘Outs’

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Fletcher
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Clear Signal ◽  
European Court

Types of flexibility – Tension: demands for diversity v. logic of uniformity – United Kingdom and differentiation under Maastricht and Amsterdam – Court of Justice (77/05 and 137/05) on Articles 4 and 5 Schengen Protocol: a clear signal disapproving UK's ‘pick and choose’ approach – Lisbon Protocols: unparalleled possibilities for differentiation coupled with coercive procedural constraints and threats of ‘expulsion’.

scholarly journals Conflicting Approaches to Conflicts of Jurisdiction: The Brussels Convention and Forum Non Conveniens

2002 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 261
Author(s):  
Christopher D Bougen
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Brussels Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Future ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
Conflicts Of Jurisdiction

In developing an earlier article, published as “Time to Revisit Forum Non Conveniens in the United Kingdom? Group Josi Reinsurance Co v UGIC (2000) 32 VUWLR 705, this paper takes the debate further. The discretionary doctrine of forum non conveniens continues to be a controversial doctrine, and its relationship with the mandatory jurisdiction provisions of the Brussels Convention often leads to courts considering the correct methodology. Due to the seemingly growing acceptance of an expansive view of the scope of the Convention, this article looks to the future of forum non conveniens in the United Kingdom. Seemingly, there is sufficient flexibility within the Convention, for its jurisdiction rules to be the sole determinant of jurisdiction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document