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

EC Signs Hague Choice of Court Convention

April 5, 2009/6 Comments/in /by Martin George
image_pdfimage_print

On 1st April 2009, the Czech Minister for Justice signed the Convention on behalf of the European Community (see the proposal to do so here). Negotiations on the Convention at the Hague were carried out ostensibly under shared competence between the EC and the Member States, but in the wake of Opinion 1/03, of course, the Community has exclusive competence to ratify the Convention. In other words, it does not need to be signed by the Member States (i.e. we’re stuck with it, whether we like it or not.) Denmark, however, will not be bound.

You will remember that Mexico and the USA have already signed the Hague Choice of Court Convention, and with the EC joining that exclusive club only one more ratification is needed for the entry into force of the Convention. My attention has been drawn to the fact that the above statement is vague at best, and misleading/confusing/wrong at worst. Apologies; allow me to rework: the Hague Convention requires two ratifications or accessions to enter into force (Art 31(1)). So far, only Mexico has acceded to the Convention, and no State has ratified it. If either the EC or US ratify it (having already signed it), or a non-signatory State accedes to it, or another Hague member state signs and ratifies it, then the Convention will enter into force (thanks Andrew and Ralf.)

(Many thanks to everyone who emailed/commented to let us know; much appreciated.)

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 Martin George https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Martin George2009-04-05 18:06:242009-04-06 12:54:25EC Signs Hague Choice of Court Convention
6 replies
  1. Andrew Dickinson says:
    April 6, 2009 at 7:02 am

    Only 2 ratifications are necessary for the Hague Choice of Court Convention to come into force (Art. 31(1)). At present, only Mexico has ratified to my knowledge. The US and EC have signed, but have still to ratify, the Convention.

  2. Richard Frimston says:
    April 7, 2009 at 2:17 pm

    On the same day, 1 April 2009, the Czech Republic and Cyprus also individually signed the Hague 2000 International Protection of Adults Convention which came into force on 1 January 2009. Swiss ratification becomes effective on 1 July 2009.

  3. Marta Requejo says:
    May 29, 2009 at 6:32 pm

    The Council Decision on the signing on behalf of the European Comunity of the Convention on the choice of court agreements has been published today (OJ L, 133, 29th May)

  4. tommaso tamburino says:
    September 29, 2009 at 3:11 pm

    To my knowledge UE has now ratified the Convention. Does anyone know if US has done / is going to do the same?

  5. tommaso tamburino says:
    September 29, 2009 at 3:12 pm

    To myknowledge EU has now ratified the Convention. Does anyone know if US has done / is going to do the same?

  6. Hugh Hutchison says:
    July 19, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    Dear Tommaso, to my knowledge the EU has yet to ratify the convention thus lacking enough support to entre into force. Please correct me if i am wrong.

    http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=98

Comments are closed.

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Political Immobilisation of Iranian Diaspora Property: Lex Situs, Human Rights and Public Policy August 22, 2026
  • The Demise of the Lex Domicilii Matrimonii in South African Private International Law August 18, 2026
  • Support in cross-border transactions by Adults: Contract law vs capacity law August 12, 2026
  • Recognition of Italian Extrajudicial Divorces in Tunisia — Between Methodological Uncertainty and the Need to Preserve Continuity of Personal Status Across Borders August 9, 2026
  • 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
Link to: ECJ: Judgment on Brussels II bis (A) Link to: ECJ: Judgment on Brussels II bis (A) ECJ: Judgment on Brussels II bis (A) Link to: Journal of Private International Law Conference 2009 at NYU Link to: Journal of Private International Law Conference 2009 at NYU Journal of Private International Law Conference 2009 at NYU
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top