Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

German Courts: Art. 34 Nr. 2 Brussels I Regulation

October 3, 2006/in /by Veronika Gaertner
image_pdfimage_print

The Court of Appeal (OLG) Zweibrücken held in a recent decision (10.5.2005 – 3 W 165/04) that a foreign judgment cannot be recognized if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings (here: "dagvaarding" of a Belgium court) according to Art. 34 Nr. 2 Brussels I.

The decision has been published in IPRax 2006, 487. See for an annotation: Herbert Roth, IPRax 2006, 466, who stresses the significance of Artt. 32 et seq. Brussels I and criticises therefore the plans to abolish the enforcement proceedings and the public policy clause de lege ferenda.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Veronika Gaertner https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Veronika Gaertner2006-10-03 09:33:092006-11-25 15:10:27German Courts: Art. 34 Nr. 2 Brussels I Regulation

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • The Demise of the Lex Domicilii Matrimonii in South African Private International Law August 18, 2026
  • Support in cross-border transactions by Adults: Contract law vs capacity law August 12, 2026
  • Recognition of Italian Extrajudicial Divorces in Tunisia — Between Methodological Uncertainty and the Need to Preserve Continuity of Personal Status Across Borders August 9, 2026
  • Private International Law and European Society August 4, 2026
  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
Link to: Seminar: The Future of Private International Law in England and Wales Link to: Seminar: The Future of Private International Law in England and Wales Seminar: The Future of Private International Law in England and Wales Link to: Settled Expectations in a World of Unsettled Law: Choice of Law after the Class Action Fairness Act Link to: Settled Expectations in a World of Unsettled Law: Choice of Law after the Class Action Fairness Act Settled Expectations in a World of Unsettled Law: Choice of Law after the Class...
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top