A new addition to the Hart Publishing private international law catalogue for 2008 is Forum Shopping in the European Judicial Area, a collection of essays by English and French scholars, edited by Pascal de Vareilles-Sommières (Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne). Here’s the blurb:

One of the issues left untouched by the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 (and by the Brussels-1 Regulation replacing it) concerns the leeway left to domestic courts when applying European rules on international jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters. For instance, is the court under a duty of strict compliance with the jurisdiction rule as it is drafted? Would such a duty go so far as to require the court to abide by the jurisdiction rule, even though it is being used by one of the litigants to achieve an unfair result, for example to delay adjudication on the merits? Under what conditions may the Court decline jurisdiction on account of any unsuitable forum shopping, thus ruling out the European provision on jurisdiction?

Recent litigation in the ECJ has yielded rather, even excessively, restrictive answers, ruling out any discretion by domestic courts to remedy any inconvenience arising from the strict application of the European provisions, if such discretion were provided for by the lex fori (the Gasser case, the Turner case, and the Owusu case). This series of rulings from the ECJ raises several questions. Most observers have questioned the appropriateness of prescribing a blind application of European rules on jurisdiction by domestic courts, relying on the legal traditions of EC Member States usually providing for corrective mechanisms – such as ‘forum non conveniens’ in English Law and ‘exception de fraude’ in French Law – in cases when a party abusively triggers the jurisdiction of a court in order to obtain an unjust advantage, thus practising unacceptable forum shopping.

The time has now come for an analysis, under both Community and comparative law, of the ramifications of the recent Gasser/Turner/Owusu cases. Readers will find in this book a collection of studies by some of the leading English and French experts today, analysing the ins and outs of jurisdiction and forum shopping in Europe.

The Table of Contents:

Part I: The Gasser Case: the Fate of Jurisdiction Clauses in Case of Lis Pendens

• 1 Parallel Proceedings and Jurisdiction Agreements in Europe 27 – Richard Fentiman
• 2 The Enforcement of Jurisdiction Agreements Further to Gasser and the Community Principle of Abuse of Right 55 – Arnaud Nuyts

Part II: The Turner Case: The Prohibition on Anti-suit Injunctions

• 3 Le Principe de Confiance Mutuelle et Les Injonctions Anti-Suit 77 – Marie-Laure Niboyet
• 4 The Prohibition on Anti-Suit Injunctions and the Relationship Between European Rules on Jurisdiction and Domestic Rules on Procedure 91 – Alexander Layton

Part III: The Owusu Case: The Rejection of the ‘Forum Non Conveniens’

• 5 The Mandatory Nature of Article 2 of the Brussels Convention and Derogation from the Rule It Lays Down 101 – Pascal de Vareilles-Sommières
• 6 Legal Certainty and the Brussels Convention — Too Much of a Good Thing? 115 – Andrew Dickinson
• 7 Forum non conveniens et Application Uniforme des Règles de Compétence 137 – Pierre Mayer
• Conclusion 145 – Horatia Muir Watt

Price: £50.00. ISBN: 1-84113-783-9 / 9781841137834. Purchase the book from Hart Publishing.

On 9 January 2008 Evelyne Gebhardt, Rapporteur in the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), has released her Draft report on the Commission’s Proposal for a Council regulation amending regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 as regards jurisdiction and introducing rules concerning applicable law in matrimonial matters (COM(2006)399 of 17 July 2006).

Pursuant to Rule 47 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure (16th edition – November 2007), the Rome III regulation is subject to the procedure with associated committees, since its subject matter ‘falls almost equally within the competence of two committees’ (as determined in Annex VI to the Rules of Procedure), and it is under the primary responsibility of the LIBE Committee, while the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) has been asked for an opinion. Carlo Casini, draftsman for the JURI Committee, presented a Draft opinion on 4 December 2007, that was discussed in the meeting of 19 December 2007.

The ‘Rome III’ file currently being examined by the LIBE Committee is thus formed by the following documents, besides the initial Commission’s Proposal and Annexes – SEC(2006)949 and SEC(2006)950 – of 17 July 2006:

• a Draft report prepared by Rapporteur Gebhardt, containing 27 amendments to the text proposed by the Commission;
• an interesting Working document on the law applicable in matrimonial matters, prepared by the Rapporteur;
• a Draft opinion delivered by the JURI Committee (draftsman: Carlo Casini).

Once the Report is adopted in the LIBE Committee, the exam of the Rome III regulation is scheduled in the plenary session of the European Parliament on 22 April 2008 (see the OEIL page on the status of the procedure).

It must be stressed that, pursuant to Art. 67(5) of the EC Treaty, the Rome III regulation is subject to the consultation procedure, so the Council is not bound by Parliament’s position. The latest Council’s document publicly available on the matter is a text drafted in June by the German and Portuguese Presidency on the basis of the meetings of the Committee on Civil Law Matters and of the comments of Member States’ delegations (doc. n. 11295 of 28 June 2007). The latest ‘Summary of discussions’ (doc. n. 5753/08, currently not accessible) was prepared by the Committee on Civil Law Matters on 28 January 2008.

A political agreement is expected to be reached in the Council by the end of the Slovenian Presidency (June 2008). For further information on the Rome III regulation, see the dedicated section of our site.