Entries by Krzysztof Pacula

Opinion of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona in the case CNP, C-913/19: Brussels I bis Regulation and notion of “branch, agency or other establishment” in the insurance context

/in /by

This Thursday, Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona presented his Opinion in the case CNP, C-913/19. In this case, a Polish court asks the Court of Justice to interpret the special jurisdictional rules in matters relating to insurance contained in Section 3 of Chapter II of the Brussels I bis Regulation, in conjunction with Article 7(2) and […]

Opinion of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona in the case C-709/19, Vereniging van Effectenbezitters: jurisdiction in matters of non-contractual liability in connection with investments in securities and collective actions

/in /by

In his Opinion delivered last Thursday, AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona presents his take on determination of the place where the damage occurred (‘Erfolgsort’) under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation in the context of a collective action for declaration of liability in connection with investments in securities. The Opinion provides further clarification in relation […]

Child Abduction Convention case and national procedural provisions determining who can be a party to the proceedings – currently under scrutiny in Poland

/in /by

Is a national procedural provision determining who can act as a party to the proceedings capable of temporarily preventing the return of a child ordered within the framework of the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention? This question has been recently answered in the affirmative, as illustrated by the recent developments in a case being currently […]

Opinion of AG Saugmandsgaard Øe on characterisation of an action relating to abuse of dominant position brought between parties to a contract. Articles 7(1) and (2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation in the case C-59/19, Wikingerhof

/in /by

An action brought between parties to a contract in a scenario where the consent to at least some of the contractual terms was allegedly expressed by the plaintiff only on account of the dominant position of the defendant is to be considered as falling within the concept of ‘matters relating to contract’ [Article 7(1) of […]