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

Case note on Gambazzi

November 30, 2009/in /by Gilles Cuniberti
image_pdfimage_print

I have posted a draft case note in English on the Gambazzi case on SSRN.

It discusses a variety of the issues raised by the judgment of the ECJ, including the characterization of English default judgments as judgments within the meaning of article 25 of the Brussels Convention (as it was then) and the compatibility of the English proceedings with public policy.

With respect to public policy, the central argument is that the ECJ’s conclusion that the English proceedings ought to be scrutinized globally is unhelpful and confusing. It should have been conceptually much clearer and should have identified the particular aspects of the proceedings which could be found as infringing Gambazzi’s fundamental rights.

The note can be freely downloaded here. It is a draft, so I very much welcome comments!

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 Gilles Cuniberti https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Gilles Cuniberti2009-11-30 09:29:132009-11-30 09:36:38Case note on Gambazzi

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: Latest Issue of “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts” (6/2009) Link to: Latest Issue of “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts” (6/2009) Latest Issue of “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts”... Link to: Jurisdiction to Take Control over, and Liquidate, Foreign Companies Link to: Jurisdiction to Take Control over, and Liquidate, Foreign Companies Jurisdiction to Take Control over, and Liquidate, Foreign Companies
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top