In his today’s Opinion, Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe addresses the question that has recently inspired much debate, already reported to our readers this January by Rishi Gulati.
At point 5, the Opinion clarifies that – at the request of the Court of Justice – its scope is limited to analysis of the issues related to Article 1(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. Therefore, no considerations concerning Article 24(5) of this Regulation, also invoked in the request for a preliminary ruling, were to be expected in the Opinion.
The question at stake concerns, therefore, the applicability and/or the scope of application of the Brussels I bis Regulation in the context of a case where an international organisation brings an action to, firstly, lift an interim garnishee levied in another Member State by the opposing party, and, secondly, prohibit the opposing party from levying, on the same grounds, an interim garnishee in the future and all that on the basis of an immunity of execution that this international organisation allegedly enjoys.
In essence, at point 90, the Opinion concludes the inclusion of such action within the scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation is determined by the nature of the right that the interim garnishee served to protect and the inclusion of that right in the scope of the Regulation.
Moreover, according to point 102 of the Opinion, the fact that an international organization invokes the immunity it allegedly enjoys under international law does not prevent a court of a Member State from establishing its jurisdiction under the Brussels I bis Regulation.
The Opinion is not yet available in English. Some other linguistic versions can be consulted here.