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

Martinez will have to wait

December 7, 2009/1 Comment/in /by Gilles Cuniberti
image_pdfimage_print

May first instance courts refer cases to the ECJ? May they apply European treaties which are not in force?

We had already reported that a French first instance court referred a case to the ECJ in Martinez seeking interpretation of articles 2 and 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (Case C278/09). A careful reader had wondered where a first instance court got its power to make such reference. In fact, it appeared that the French court had applied article 267 of the Lisbon Treaty before it was in force.

On November 20, 2009, the ECJ issued an order declining jurisdiction. It held that the Lisbon Treaty was not in force, and that pursuant to article 68 of the EC Treaty, a first instance court did not have the power to make a reference for a preliminary ruling as an appeal could still be lodged against its decision.

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 Cuniberti2009-12-07 15:49:532009-12-07 16:33:05Martinez will have to wait
1 reply
  1. Carl Friedrich Nordmeier says:
    December 8, 2009 at 6:04 pm

    Altough, the questions raised by the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris won’t remain without anwser by the ECJ – the German Bundesgerichtshof (decision of 10.11.2009, process n. VI ZR 217/08, availible in German at http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de ) asked more or less the same, even citing the Tribunal de grande instance (n. 9 of the decision). In addition, the Bundesgerichtshof wants to know about the relationship between the country-of-origin-principle from the e-commerce-directive and private international law.
    And the Bundesgerichtshof is a court of last instance, so there won’t be any problems concerning the intertemporal application of article 267.

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: New Title on Nagoya University Comparative Study of Civil Justice Link to: New Title on Nagoya University Comparative Study of Civil Justice New Title on Nagoya University Comparative Study of Civil Justice Link to: French Publication: Special Issue of Gazette du Palais on International Litigation Link to: French Publication: Special Issue of Gazette du Palais on International Litigation French Publication: Special Issue of Gazette du Palais on International Lit...
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top