Amidst a raft of judgments and opinions handed down by the CJEU on 6 September 2012, are several of note which relate to the EU private international law instruments, as follows:
Brussels I Regulation
- Judgment: Case C-619/10, Trade Agency Ltd v Seramico Investments – application of Arts. 34(1) and (2) to the enforcement of an English default judgment, including an assessment as to whether the enforcement of a judgment given in default of appearance, without reasons, may be opposed on public policy grounds (answer: it depends).
- Judgment: Case C-190/11, Mühlleitner v Yusufi - the consumer contract provisions (Art. 15) may apply to a contract arising from directed activities of the kind referred to in Art. 15(1)(c) even if it has not been concluded at a distance.
- Opinion: Case C-456/11, Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG v Samskip GmbH – a preliminary judgment on a question of jurisdiction (as to the validity and effectiveness of a choice of court agreement in favour of the courts of Iceland) is a “judgment” which must be recognised under the Regulation, and findings as to the validity and scope of the agreement are binding on the court addressed regardless of its status as res judicata in the Member State of origin or the Member State addressed.
- Judgment: Case C-170/11, Lippens v Kortekaas – the Regulation does not preclude a Member State court, acting under its own procedural rules, from summoning a party to appear as a witness before it.
- Opinion: Case C-332/11, ProRail NV v Xpedys NV – the Regulation does not preclude a Member State court, acting under its own procedural rules, from ordering the taking of expert evidence, partly in another Member State, provided that the performance of that part of the investigation does not require the cooperation of the authorities of that Member State.
It looks like it’s time to shake off the holiday season, and prepare for another year on the EU private international law rollercoaster.