Protective Jurisdiction Under the Brussels Convention

2018 ◽  
pp. 161-184
Author(s):  
Abla Mayss ◽  
Alan Reed
Keyword(s):  
1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 302-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerry Maher ◽  
Barry J. Rodger

It is a well-known facet of litigation that the first step is often more important than any to follow. Virtually all legal systems bestow on litigants a variety of interim and provisional remedies. These remedies have a number of different functions and rationales but two in particular are thought to be fundamental.1 First, protective remedies provide a litigant with a degree of protection by ensuring that the status quo is preserved while the litigation is proceeding; second, these remedies secure the position of a litigant not only during the course of an action but also once it is over and he has judgment in his favour. This second function is usually achieved, in one way or another, by tying up and freezing the property of the other party to the action.2 However, protective remedies also serve other functions. Some remedies exist to promote the interest of a party in the advancement of his case (e.g. orders for disclosure of evidence), whereas others provide a litigant with part of the overall final remedy or judgment that he is seeking to gain from the action (e.g. interim payment or interim damages).


2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 1505-1524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan-Jaap Kuipers

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.


2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 499-544
Author(s):  
Roger O’Keefe

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document