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

New Publication: Kruger on EU Jurisdiction Rules and Third States

November 5, 2008/1 Comment/in /by Jan Neels
image_pdfimage_print

T. Kruger, Civil Jurisdiction rules of the EU and their impact on third States, Oxford University Press, 2008, 442p.

This new publication by the South African author Dr Thalia Kruger examines the civil jurisdiction rules of the EU, contained in Council Regulations 44/2001 (Brussels I), 2201/2003 (Brussels IIbis), and 1346/2000 (Insolvency Regulation) through the lens of third States. The Regulations have been created for EU Member States and cases with elements in two or more of these States. However, in practice questions have arisen about which of the national civil jurisdiction rules can still be used when parties from third States are concerned. There were the cases of Turner, Owusu, and the Lugano Opinion, to mention just those that have reached the European Court of Justice. These cases have shown that the demarcation between EU law and national law in the sphere of civil jurisdiction is not always clear-cut.

The book is built around four cornerstones, which are used for the determination of the regulations’ applicability. The first is the defendant and his, her, or its domicile, nationality, habitual residence, or, in the case of the Insolvency Regulation, centre of main interests: what is the effect if that is in a third State? This part of the book also examines bases of jurisdiction linked to the place of the performance of a contract or the commission of a delict or tort and how the domicile of the defendant is relevant in finding whether or not the regulations should be applied. The second cornerstone is exclusive jurisdiction, such as that based on immoveable property. Here it is not some aspect of the defendant that determines applicability of the regulations, but rather the property or other exclusive element. The third cornerstone is the choice by the parties of where they want their dispute to be heard. The fourth cornerstone is a procedural one and deals with the rules of lis pendens, forum non conveniens, related actions, and anti-suit injunctions. The book concludes with recommendations for the amendment of Brussels I to take the situation of third States into account more explicitly.

This book is published in the Private International Law Series of Oxford University Press. It is a reworked version of Thalia Kruger’s PhD thesis, completed in 2005 at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven under Professor Hans Van Houtte’s supervision.

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 Jan Neels https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Jan Neels2008-11-05 10:42:382008-11-05 16:24:14New Publication: Kruger on EU Jurisdiction Rules and Third States
1 reply
  1. John Ahern says:
    November 10, 2008 at 1:47 am

    Thanks for this update – and thanks to Amazon.

    I had been putting off book-buying until I could add something else to the new Cheshire, North & Fawcett!

Comments are closed.

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • 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
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
  • The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate June 6, 2026
Link to: Publication: Heidelberg Report on the Application of Regulation Brussels I Link to: Publication: Heidelberg Report on the Application of Regulation Brussels I Publication: Heidelberg Report on the Application of Regulation Brussels I Link to: French Case on Lis Pendens under Brussels II bis Regulation Link to: French Case on Lis Pendens under Brussels II bis Regulation French Case on Lis Pendens under Brussels II bis Regulation
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top