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

Dutch Reference for a Preliminary Ruling on Art. 4 of the Rome Convention (Update)

June 6, 2008/in /by Giorgio Buono
image_pdfimage_print

Following our post on the first reference for a preliminary ruling on the Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, the questions referred by the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) have been published on the ECJ’s website.

The case, lodged on 2 April 2008, is pending under C-133/08, ICF (Intercontainer Interfrigo (ICF) SC v Balkenende Oosthuizen BV and MIC Operations BV).

Questions referred:

a) Must Article 4(4) of the 1980 Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations be construed as meaning that it relates only to voyage charter parties and that other forms of charter party fall outside the scope of that provision?

(b) If Question (a) is answered in the affirmative, must Article 4(4) of the 1980 Convention then be construed as meaning that, in so far as other forms of charter party also relate to the carriage of goods, the contract in question comes, so far as that carriage is concerned, within the scope of that provision and the applicable law is for the rest determined by Article 4(2) of the 1980 Convention?

(c) If Question (b) is answered in the affirmative, which of the two legal bases indicated should be used as the basis for examining a contention that the legal claims based on the contract are time-barred?

(d) If the predominant aspect of the contract relates to the carriage of goods, should the division referred to in Question (b) not be taken into account and must then the law applicable to all constituent parts of the contract be determined pursuant to Article 4(4) of the 1980 Convention?

With regard to the ground set out in 3.6.(ii) above:

(e) Must the exception in the second clause of Article 4(5) of the 1980 Convention be interpreted in such a way that the presumptions in Article 4(2), (3) and (4) of the 1980 Convention do not apply only if it is evident from the circumstances in their totality that the connecting criteria indicated therein do not have any genuine connecting value, or indeed if it is clear therefrom that there is a stronger connection with some other country?

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 Giorgio Buono https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Giorgio Buono2008-06-06 16:30:492008-06-06 16:30:49Dutch Reference for a Preliminary Ruling on Art. 4 of the Rome Convention (Update)

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Political Immobilisation of Iranian Diaspora Property: Lex Situs, Human Rights and Public Policy August 22, 2026
  • 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
Link to: JHA Council Session (5-6 June 2008): Adoption of the Rome I Reg. – Political Guidelines on Rome III and Maintenance Reg. – External Dimension of JHA Link to: JHA Council Session (5-6 June 2008): Adoption of the Rome I Reg. – Political Guidelines on Rome III and Maintenance Reg. – External Dimension of JHA JHA Council Session (5-6 June 2008): Adoption of the Rome I Reg. – Political... Link to: Rome I Reg. Adopted (and Other Results of the JHA Council Session of 5-6 June 2008) Link to: Rome I Reg. Adopted (and Other Results of the JHA Council Session of 5-6 June 2008) Rome I Reg. Adopted (and Other Results of the JHA Council Session of 5-6 June...
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top