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

2007 Lugano Convention in Force

March 9, 2010/1 Comment/in /by Gilles Cuniberti
image_pdfimage_print

The 2007 Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters entered into force between the Member States of the European Union (including Danemark) and Norway on January 1st, 2010.

Article 69(4) of the new Lugano Convention provides:

The Convention shall enter into force on the first day of the sixth month following the date on which the European Community and a Member of the European Free Trade Association deposit their instruments of ratification.

The report of the Council of the European Union can be found here. 

The Convention still does not apply with respect to other contracting states of EFTA, namely Switzerland and Island. It will on the first day of the third month following the deposit of their instrument of ratification (art. 69(5)), and eventually replace the 1988 Lugano Convention.

Thanks to Rafaël Jafferali for the tipp-off

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 Cuniberti2010-03-09 05:24:262010-03-08 21:58:102007 Lugano Convention in Force
1 reply
  1. AF says:
    September 14, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    This Regulation is yet another ridiculous and risible attempt bythe EU to regulate for regulation’s sake.

    First we had the Brussels Convention. Then came the Lugano Convention. Then the EU decided that the Brussels Convention wasn’t good enough for EU mutual co-operation (yes it was) so it was replaced by Regulation EC 44/2001 (Brussels 1). Then the EU decided it had competence to regulate on the Lugano Convention (god knows how, since it operates outside the judicial competence of the European Union), so it replaced the Lugano Convention AND Brussels 1 with this new EC Regulation.

    So, Brussels 1 and Lugano, are now superceded by this new Regulation.

    Madness. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it as we Brits say.

    What next.

Comments are closed.

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • 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
  • 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
Link to: ECJ: Distinction between “Sale of Goods” and “Provision of Services” in Terms of Art. 5 (1) (b) Brussels I (Car Trim) Link to: ECJ: Distinction between “Sale of Goods” and “Provision of Services” in Terms of Art. 5 (1) (b) Brussels I (Car Trim) ECJ: Distinction between “Sale of Goods” and “Provision of... Link to: Fourth Issue of 2009’s Revue Critique de Droit International Privé Link to: Fourth Issue of 2009’s Revue Critique de Droit International Privé Fourth Issue of 2009’s Revue Critique de Droit International Privé
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top