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

Tick Tock: CJEU rules on temporal application of the Rome II Regulation

November 21, 2011/in /by Andrew Dickinson
image_pdfimage_print

On 17 November 2011, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its ruling in Case C-412/10, Homawoo v GMF Assurances on the temporal effect of the Rome II Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 864/2007) . In line with the earlier opinion (if not all of the reasoning) of Advocate General Mengozzi, the Court rules that the date of application of the Rome II Regulation is fixed by Art. 32 of the Regulation at 11 January 2009, with the consequence that the Regulation will apply only to events giving rise to damage occurring from that date (Art. 31).

The terms of the Court’s ruling are as follows:

Articles 31 and 32 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (‘Rome II’), read in conjunction with Article 297 TFEU, must be interpreted as requiring a national court to apply the Regulation only to events giving rise to damage occurring after 11 January 2009 and that the date on which the proceedings seeking compensation for damage were brought or the date on which the applicable law was determined by the court seised have no bearing on determining the scope ratione temporis of the Regulation.

Although differing from my own view, influenced by the legislative history of Arts 31 and 32, the Court’s reasoning is quite convincing. The swift and decisive settlement of this point of controversy, just over a year after the reference, is to be welcomed.

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 Andrew Dickinson https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Andrew Dickinson2011-11-21 11:05:382011-11-21 16:41:49Tick Tock: CJEU rules on temporal application of the Rome II Regulation

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • CJEU in Marwanak C-873/24 on the interpretation of the Succession Regulation in light of its objectives November 11, 2026
  • Enforcing China’s Statutory Post-Judgment Interest in Other Jurisdictions November 11, 2026
  • Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments between Greece and Albania November 6, 2026
  • Brazil’s Superior Court Invokes Forum Non Conveniens: Is that Really What They Mean? November 4, 2026
  • Recognition of a Kosovar Judgment in Greece October 28, 2026
  • The Philippines: Recognition of Foreign Divorces and Recent Amendments to the Rules of Court October 21, 2026
  • Mozambican Supreme Court Recognises an Indian Adoption: A Teleological Approach to the Recognition of Foreign Acts October 19, 2026
  • Egyptian Supreme Court Enforces Italian Judgment: The Right Outcome despite Some Reservations October 14, 2026
  • Talaq Divorce Cases in the United States October 7, 2026
  • Book Review: Choice of Forum Clauses in Asia (Lemuel L Lopez) October 5, 2026
  • Zamzam on Egyptian Private International Law (in Arabic): Towards Reviving the Golden Age of Egyptian Private International Law October 2, 2026
  • Maintenance Duties for a Gestational Surrogate Following Non-Recognition – An Unreported Spanish Judgment September 22, 2026
  • From Symbolism to Substance: Comity and Judicial Reform in South Africa’s Foreign Judgments Regime September 15, 2026
  • Persistent and Reasonable Efforts in the Field of Cross-Border Service of Documents. Continuation or Stay of Proceedings? September 12, 2026
  • Speaking for the Dead: Idziski and the Forum for Post-Mortem Likeness Claims September 7, 2026
Link to: Special leave granted in PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Link to: Special leave granted in PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Special leave granted in PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd v Australian Competition and... Link to: PILAGG Website Link to: PILAGG Website PILAGG Website
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top