Tag Archive for: Brussels I

From anti-suit injunctions to ‘quasi’ anti-suit injunctions and declaratory relief for breach of a choice of court agreement: a whiter shade of pale?

Nearly a year ago I reported on a Greek judgment refusing execution of two English orders issued on the basis of a High Court judgment which granted declaratory relief to the applicants. This came as a result of proceedings initiated in Greece, in breach of the settlement agreements and the exclusive jurisdiction clauses in favor of English courts. A recent judgment rendered by the same court confirmed the incidental recognition of the same High Court judgment, which resulted in the dismissal of the claim filed before Greek courts due to lack of jurisdiction.

Piraeus Court of Appeal Nr. 89/31.01.2020


The facts of the case are clearly presented in the case Starlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine & Aviation Versicherungs AG [2014] EWHC 3068 (Comm) (26 September 2014. The UK defendants invoked before the Piraeus first instance court the judgment aforementioned, and requested incidental recognition in Greece. The Piraeus court granted recognition, and dismissed the claim. The plaintiffs appealed, seeking reversal on two grounds: Lack of res iudicata and violation of Article 34 (1) Brussels I Regulation.


The Piraeus CoA founded its ruling on point 39 of the English judgment:

  1. So far as the Hellenic settlement agreement is concerned, clause 2 expressly provides that the payment of U.S.$4.8 million is “in full and final settlement of all and any claims they may have under the Policy in relation to the loss of [the vessel] against the Underwriters and/or against any of its servants and/or agents..” As with the CMI and LMI settlement agreements, that wording settles claims under the policy in relation to the loss of the vessel. Accordingly, by application of the reasoning of Longmore LJ in the Court of Appeal, as set out at [32] to [35] above, the claims against Hellenic in Greece are within the settlement and indemnity provisions in the Hellenic settlement agreement and in breach of the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Hellenic settlement agreement and the arbitration clause in the underlying Policy

Res iudicata and public policy

The Piraeus court had no difficult task in establishing the finality of the English judgment: It simply referred to the certificate issued by the English court.

The public policy defence was also considered as unfounded, by reference to Article 35 (2 and 3) Brussels I Regulation.

No anti-suit injunction order

It then stressed out that the foreign judgment solidifies the exclusive international jurisdiction of English courts, without ordering the claimants/appellants to refrain from filing an action or moving ahead with the proceedings before Greek courts, by imposing any measures for this purpose. Hence, the court continues, the foreign judgment in question fulfils the criteria under Article 32 Brussels I Regulation, and therefore it is not considered as an anti-suit injunction, because it does not hinder the Greek court to examine their jurisdiction. For the above reasons, the English judgment may be incidentally recognized, which means that the Greek court is bound by its findings on the international jurisdiction issue. Finally, it should be underlined that no reference to the Gothaer  ruling of the CJEU was made by the Piraeus court.


Finally, the Piraeus court explained the reasons which led to a different outcome from that of the judgment issued by the same court a year ago. First of all, the court was not bound by the res iudicata of the 2019 judgment, because the defendants were not the same. Secondly, the 2019 judgment examined an application for the enforcement of the English orders, whereas in the present case the subject matter was the existence or non-existence of the choice of court clause.

For all the above reasons, the appeal was dismissed.


Following the case law of the CJEU on anti-suit injunctions, and the non-recognition of the orders, which were labelled by the 2019 judgment as ‘quasi’ anti-suit injunctions, the defendants used the seemingly sole remaining tool for avoiding a re-examination of international jurisdiction on the merits by the Greek courts; the outcome proves them right. The question however remains the same: Are declaratory orders stating that English courts have exclusive jurisdiction and that proceedings in other Member States are in breach of an English exclusive jurisdiction agreement in line with the mutual trust principle? In his thesis [pp. 146 et seq.], Mukarrum Ahmed  argues that those orders are at odds with the above principle.

The Greek Supreme will have the final word.

Of course, a preliminary request remains a possibility.

CJEU on the implications of its Judgment in Pula Parking: Joined cases C-267/19 and C-323/19, Parking / Interplastics

Preliminary question and its context

In its Judgment of 7 May 2020, delivered in the joined cases C-267/19 and C-323/19 without Advocate General’s Opinion, the Court of Justice provides some further guidance on the implications of its previous case law and most notably of the Judgment in the case C-551/15, Pula Parking (‘Judgment in Pula Parking’).

Just as in the case that led to Judgment in Pula Parking, the requests for a preliminary ruling in the cases in question were lodged in the context of the proceedings on the oppositions to the writs of execution. Put succinctly: under the Croatian law, a notary issues a writ of execution based on an ‘authentic document’. The party against whom enforcement is sought may lodge an opposition to that writ. The court to which the opposition is transferred has jurisdiction to set aside the writ and to annul the measures taken so far. The procedure continues according to the rules applicable to cases of opposition to a payment order.

By way of background, in Judgment in Pula Parking, the Court held, inter alia, that ‘[the Brussels I bis Regulation] must be interpreted as meaning that, in Croatia, notaries, acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an “authentic document”, do not fall within the concept of “court” within the meaning of that [Regulation]’.

The referring court in the present cases indicates that Judgment in Pula Parking receives various interpretation on the national level. It seems that the reading of this Judgment according to which it relates exclusively to enforcement proceedings conducted against a party being a natural person and national of another EU Member State prevails in the Croatian case law.

However, for the referring court, that reading of Judgment in Pula Parking establishes a discriminatory difference in the way in which the Brussels I bis Regulation is applied in Croatia. The referring court seems to understand that Judgment as implying that, in its Member State, notaries are not entitled to issue writs of execution based on an ‘authentic document’ and therefore, the fact that they continue to do so, is at odds with the Regulation.

In view of those explanations, at paragraph 42 the Court clarifies that it understands the request for a preliminary ruling as concerning the question whether Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 47 of the Charter preclude national legislation entitling the Croatian notaries to issue the writs of execution on the basis of the ‘authentic documents’, which, in light of Judgment in Pula Parking, will not be recognized and/or enforced in other Member States under the scheme of the Brussels I bis Regulation.


Consideration of the question referred and what can be learned from it

At paragraph 43 the Court reaffirms that the writs of execution issued by the Croatian notaries would not benefit from the scheme of the Regulation when it comes to their recognition and/or enforcement. At paragraph 44, the Court reminds that Judgment in Pula Parking does not imply, however, that the Brussels I bis Regulation prevents the notaries from issuing the writs of execution. The references to Judgment in Pula Parking pave the way for the conclusion that neither Article 18 of the TFUE (paragraph 45), nor Article 47 of the Charter (paragraph 53) preclude national legislation entitling the notaries to issue the writs of execution which do not benefit from the recognition/enforcement scheme of the Regulation.

Incidentally, given that according to Judgment in Pula Parking the notaries do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ within the meaning of the Brussels I bis Regulation, paragraph 43 seems to imply that a writ of execution based on a ‘authentic document’ would not be recognized and/or enforced as ‘judgment’ within the meaning of Article 2(a) of the Regulation.

Neither the joined cases in question, nor the case that led to Judgment in Pula Parking offered an opportunity to address the question whether a writ of execution issued by a notary could be enforced under the scheme of the Brussels I bis Regulation as an ‘authentic instrument’ in the sense of Article 2(c) of the Regulation. In any case, an ‘authentic document’ on which a writ of execution is based cannot, in my view, be automatically placed on the same footing as such ‘authentic instrument’. Therefore, a writ of execution would not necessarily have to be an ‘authentic instrument’ based on an ‘authentic instrument’.

For the sake of completeness, AG Bot touched upon a somehow similar question in the context of the Regulation No 805/2004 (Regulation on European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims) in his Opinion in the case C-484/15, Zulfikarpaši. At points 45 to 49, he considered that a writ of execution is not an ‘authentic instrument’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that Regulation because the writ does not concern an uncontested claim. That argumentation is in line with the interpretation that the Court presented in its Judgment in that case and in particular at its paragraph 55. However, such argumentation could most probably not be directly transposed to the Brussels I bis Regulation as this Regulation does not confine its scope solely to uncontested claims.

It is also worth noticing that the Judgment of 7 May 2020 makes a point that exceeds the scope of the inquiry on the implications of Judgment in Pula Parking for the Croatian legal system. At paragraphs 33 et seq., in the part of the Judgment of 7 May 2020 relating to the jurisdiction of the Court, the criteria set in Article 3(1) of the Regulation no 1896/2006 (Regulation on European Order for Payment) in order to define a ‘cross-border case’ within the meaning of that Regulation are referred to in order to establish the existence of an international element that is necessary for the Brussels I bis Regulation to become applicable to a specific case.

The requests for a preliminary ruling in the cases in question can be consulted here and here. For numerous linguistic versions of the Judgment see here (no English version yet).

Milan Conference on the Reform of the Brussels I Regime (13 December 2013)

The University “Luigi Bocconi” of Milan will host on Friday 13 December (9h30 – 13h00) a conference on the recast of the Brussels I reg., organized in collaboration with the International Law Association: “The Reform of the ‘Brussels I’ Regime – The Recast Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012”. A substantial part of the colloquium will be held in English. Here’s the programme (available as a .pdf file):

Welcome Address: Giorgio Sacerdoti (Università Bocconi)

Opening Remarks: Alberto Malatesta (Secretary, ILA-Italy)

Chair: Fausto Pocar (Università degli Studi di Milano)

  • The Revised Brussels I Regulation – A general outlook: The Rt. Hon. Lord Jonathan Mance (Judge, Supreme Court of the UK and Chair, Executive Council, ILA);
  • Does the Recast Regulation Make Choice-of-Court Agreements More Effective?: Gianluca Contaldi (Università di Macerata);
  • The New Rules on Parallel Proceedings with Particular Regard to Relations with Third States: Pietro Franzina (Università degli Studi di Ferrara);
  • The Abolition of Exequatur and the New Rules on the Free Movement of Judgments: Paola Mariani (Università Bocconi).

– – – –

Roundtable (held in Italian): “Il ruolo di Bruxelles I nel contesto globale: quale ruolo per le norme UE?

Chair: Riccardo Luzzatto (Università degli Studi di Milano)


  • Luigi Fumagalli (Università degli Studi di Milano);
  • Alberto Malatesta (LIUC Università Carlo Cattaneo);
  • Gian Battista Origoni della Croce (Attorney at Law, Milan);
  • Fausto Pocar (Università degli Studi di Milano).

Further information and the registration form are available on the conference’s webpage.

Book: Marongiu Buonaiuti, Le obbligazioni non contrattuali nel diritto internazionale privato

FMB-Le-obbligazioni-non-contrattuali__1338079.gifFabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti (Univ. of Macerata) has recently published “Le obbligazioni non contrattuali nel diritto internazionale privato” (Non-contractual Obligations in Private International Law ) (Giuffrè, 2013). An abstract has been kindly provided by the author (the complete table of contents is available on the publisher’s website):

The volume deals with non-contractual obligations in private international law, addressing both issues related to jurisdiction and to conflict of laws.

As concerns jurisdiction, the volume discusses the problems posed by the application of the rules on jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters as contained in EC Regulation No. 44/2001 (s.c. “Brussels I”) to disputes concerning non-contractual obligations. Special attention is devoted to the specific rule of jurisdiction in matters of tort or delict under Article 5.3 of the said Regulation (to be replaced, without modifications as to the substance, by Article 7.2 of EU Regulation No. 1215/2012 providing for its recast) and to its coordination with the other rules of jurisdiction. The volume addresses also the more recent case law of the European Court of Justice concerning the application of the said rule to non-contractual obligations arising from activities performed through the Internet and implying violations either of privacy and personality rights or of intellectual property rights.

As concerns conflict of laws, the volume examines the rules contained in EC Regulation No. 864/2007 (s.c. “Rome II”) on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations, stressing parallelism and differences in respect of the solutions achieved as concerns jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation. Furthermore, the volume deals with the problems of coordination of the conflict of laws rules as contained in the Rome II Regulation with the rules contained in international conventions applicable in the field concerned, to which the Regulation grants priority. The volume finally addresses the domestic rules on conflict of laws as contained in Law No. 218 of 31 May 1995 providing for the reform of the Italian system of private international law, which apply residually to non-contractual obligations not governed by the Regulation.

Title: “Le obbligazioni non contrattuali nel diritto internazionale privato“, by Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti, Giuffrè (series: Pubblicazioni del Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza dell’Università degli Studi di Macerata, Nuova serie, vol. 139), Milano, 2013, X – 254 pages.

ISBN: 9788814182419. Price: EUR 26. Available at Giuffrè.

Book: Pocar – Viarengo – Villata (Eds.), Recasting Brussels I

The Italian publishing house CEDAM has published a new volume on the review of the Brussels I regulation: “Recasting Brussels I“. The book, edited by Fausto Pocar, Ilaria Viarengo and Francesca Clara Villata (all from the Univ. of Milan) includes twenty-five papers divided into five parts, devoted to the scope of application (I), rules on jurisdiction (II), choice-of-court agreements (III), coordination of proceedings (IV) and recognition and enforcement of judgments (V).

Here’s the table of contents (.pdf file):


  • Rainer Hausmann, The Scope of Application of the Brussels I Regulation;
  • Ilaria Viarengo, The Removal of Maintenance Obligations from the Scope of Brussels I;
  • Claudio Consolo – Marcello Stella, Brussels I Regulation Amendment Proposals and Arbitration;
  • Peter Kindler, Torpedo Actions and the Interface between Brussels I and International Commercial Arbitration;
  • Stefano Azzali – Michela De Santis, Impact of the Commission’s Proposal to Revise Brussels I Regulation on Arbitration Proceedings Administered by the Chamber of Arbitration of Milan.


  • Burkhard Hess, The Proposed Recast of the Brussels I Regulation: Rules on Jurisdiction;
  • Riccardo Luzzatto, On the Proposed Application of Jurisdictional Criteria of Brussels I Regulation to Non-Domiciled Defendants;
  • Fausto Pocar, A Partial Recast: Has the Lugano Convention Been Forgotten?;
  • Alexander R. Markus, Harmonisation of the EU Rules of Jurisdiction Regarding Defendants Outside the EU. What About the Lugano Countries?;
  • Ruggiero Cafari Panico, Forum necessitatis. Judicial Discretion in the Exercise of Jurisdiction;
  • Marco Ricolfi, The Recasting of Brussels I Regulation from an Intellectual Property Lawyer’s Perspective;
  • Eva Lein, Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Cross-Border Mass Litigation;
  • Zeno Crespi Reghizzi, A New Special Forum for Disputes Concerning Rights in Rem over Movable Assets: Some Remarks on Article 5(3) of the Commission’s Proposal.


  • Ilaria Queirolo, Prorogation of Jurisdiction in the Proposal for a Recast of the Brussels I Regulation;
  • Christian Kohler, Agreements Conferring Jurisdiction on Courts of Third States;
  • Francesca C. Villata, Choice-of-Court Agreements in Favour of Third States’ Jurisdiction in Light of the Suggestions by Members of the European Parliament.


  • Luigi Fumagalli, Lis Alibi Pendens. The Rules on Parallel Proceedings in the Reform of the Brussels I Regulation;
  • Pietro Franzina, Successive Proceedings over the Same Cause of Action: A Plea for a New Rule on Dismissals for Lack of Jurisdiction;
  • Lidia Sandrini, Coordination of Substantive and Interim Proceedings;
  • Cristina M. Mariottini, The Proposed Recast of the Brussels I Regulation and Forum Non Conveniens in the European Union Judicial Area.


  • Sergio M. Carbone, What About the Recognition of Third States’ Foreign Judgments?;
  • Thomas Pfeiffer, Recast of the Brussels I Regulation: The abolition of Exequatur;
  • Stefania Bariatti, Recognition and Enforcement in the EU of Judicial Decisions Rendered upon Class Actions: The Case of U.S. and Dutch Judgments and Settlements;
  • Manlio Frigo, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments on Matters Relating to Personality Rights and the Recast Proposal of the Brussels I Regulation;
  • Marco De Cristofaro, The Abolition of Exequatur Proceedings: Speeding up the Free Movement of Judgments while Preserving the Rights of the Defense.

– – –

Title: Recasting Brussels I, edited by F. Pocar, I. Viarengo and F.C. Villata, CEDAM (Series: Studi e pubblicazioni della Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale – Volume 76), Padova, 2012, XXIV – 382 pages.

ISBN 9788813314699. Price: EUR 32,50. Available at CEDAM.

(Many thanks to Prof. Francesca Villata for the tip-off)

JHA Council (7-8 June 2012): EU Regulation on Successions and Wills Adopted – General Approach on Brussels I Recast – CESL

The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council of the EU, currently holding its meeting in Luxembourg (7-8 June), adopted today the successions regulation (Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions, acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European certificate of succession): see the Council’s note and RAPID press release. The final text can be found in doc. no. PE-CONS 14/12.

Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom do not participate in the regulation, pursuant to the special position they hold in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, while Malta voted against the adoption, expressing concerns on the uncertainty that the new rules will create in the legal regime of international successions, vis-à-vis current Maltese law (see the Maltese statement in the Addendum to Council’s doc. no. 10569/1/12).

As pointed out in a previous post, an agreement had been reached by the Council and the Parliament in order to adopt the new instrument at first reading: a history of the legislative procedure, along with the key documents, is available on the OEIL and Prelex websites. Once the regulation is published in the OJ, the whole set of Council’s documents relating to the procedure, currently not available, will be disclosed. An interesting reading on the legislative history can also be found on the IPEX website, which gathers the opinions of national parliaments of the Member States on draft EU legislation.

– – –

Two other PIL items are set on the agenda of the JHA meeting on Friday 8 June. The Council is expected to approve a general approach on the Brussels I recast (see the state of play in Council’s doc. no 10609/12 and the draft text set out in doc. no 10609/12 ADD 1), and to hold a debate on the orientation and the method to handle the further negotiations on the proposal for regulation on a Common European Sales Law (CESL). As regards the latter, here’s an excerpt from the background note of the meeting:

The first discussions on the [CESL] proposal have made it clear that this file entails divergences among member states. Several member states had therefore requested that a political debate at the level of the Council takes place before proceeding further with technical discussions.

To this end, the Presidency submits a discussion paper to the Council (10611/12) proposing that  ministers address questions related to the legal basis and the need for the proposal, its scope (focus  on sales contracts concluded on-line) and whether to start work on model contract terms and conditions.

Italo-German Cooperation in the Brussels I Recast: Conference in Milan (25-26 November 2011)

The University of Milan will host a two-day conference on 25 and 26 November 2011 on the review of the Brussels I regulation, organized with the University of Padova, the University of Heidelberg and the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München: “Cooperazione Italo-Tedesca nella revisione del Regolamento Bruxelles I – Deutsch-Italienische Kooperation im Rahmen der Neufassung der Brüssel I-Verordnung“. The working languages will be English, Italian and German. Here’s the programme (.pdf):

I Session: Friday 25 November 2011, 10h00

Saluti introduttivi – Grußworte: Prof. Dr. Marino Regini (Università degli Studi di Milano); Prof. Dr. Angela Lupone (Università degli Studi di Milano)

Chair: Prof. Dr. Ilaria Viarengo (University of Milan)

  • Prof. Dr. Rainer Hausmann (Universität Konstanz): L’ambito di applicazione del regolamento – Der Anwendungsbereich der Verordnung;
  • Prof. Dr. Andrea Gattini (Università degli Studi di Padova): I rapporti con le convenzioni internazionali – Das Verhältnis zu internationalen Abkommen;
  • Prof. Dr. Burkhard Hess (Universität Heidelberg): La competenza in materia di liti patrimoniali- Die Gerichtsbarkeit für vermögensrechtliche Streitigkeiten;
  • Prof. Dr. Ruggiero Cafari Panico (Università degli Studi di Milano): Il forum necessitatis – Die Notzuständigkeit (forum necessitatis).

–  –  –  –

II session: Friday 25 November 2011, 14h00

Chair: Prof. Dr. Peter Kindler (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München)

  • Prof. Dr. Claudio Consolo (Università degli Studi di Padova): La proposta di revisione del Regolamento Bruxelles I e l’arbitrato – Der Vorschlag zur Revision der Brüssel I-Verordnung und die Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit;
  • Prof. Dr. Christian Kohler (Universität Saarbrücken)Prof. Dr. Ilaria Queirolo (Università degli Studi di Genova): Gli accordi di proroga della giurisdizione nella proposta di revisione del regolamento Bruxelles I – Die Gerichtsstandsvereinbarung im Vorschlag zur Neufassung der Brüssel I-Verordnung;
  • Prof. Dr. Luigi Fumagalli (Università degli Studi di Milano): La litispendenza – Die Rechtshängigkeit.

–  –  –  –

III session: Saturday 26 November 2011, 9h00

Chair: Prof. Dr. Kurt Siehr (Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, Hamburg)

  • Prof. Dr. Marco De Cristofaro (Università degli Studi di Padova) – Prof. Dr. Thomas Pfeiffer (Universität Heidelberg): L’abolizione dell’exequatur – Die Abschaffung des Exequaturverfahrens;
  • Prof. Dr. Manlio Frigo (Università degli Studi di Milano): Il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia di diffamazione – Die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von Entscheidungen bei Verleumdungsklagen;
  • Prof. Dr. Stefania Bariatti (Università degli Studi di Milano): Il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle decisioni rese a seguito di class action – Die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von Entscheidungen ergangen aufgrund einer Sammelklage (class action).

–  –  –  –

Round Table: Saturday 26 November 2011, 11h15

Tavola rotonda sull’impatto della revisione del Regolamento sull’ordinamento italiano e sull’ordinamento tedesco – Podiumsdiskussion zu den Auswirkungen der Revision der Verordnung auf das italienische und das deutsche Recht

Chair: Prof. Dr. Fausto Pocar (Università degli Studi di Milano)

  • Prof. Stefano Azzali (Camera Arbitrale di Milano)
  • Prof. Dr. Sergio M. Carbone (Università degli Studi di Genova)
  • Prof. Dr. Herbert Kronke (Universität Heidelberg)
  • Prof. Dr. Riccardo Luzzatto (Università degli Studi di Milano)
  • Prof. Dr. Alexander R. Markus (Universität Bern)
  • Prof. Dr. Marco Ricolfi (Università degli Studi di Torino – Studio Tosetto, Weigmann & Associati)

The event is organized under the patronage of the Italo-German Chamber of Commerce and Chamber of arbitration of Milan, and with the financial support of: Ateneo Italo-Tedesco; Law firm Gebhard (Milan, Stuttgart); Law firm Tosetto, Weigmann & Associati (Turin, Milan, Rome); “Associazione per gli scambi culturali tra giuristi italiani e tedeschi”.

For further information and registration, see the programme and the conference’s webpage.

(Many thanks to Prof. Francesca Villata, University of Milan, for the tip-off)

Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional, Issue 2/2011

The second issue for 2011 of the Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional, the Spanish journal published twice a year by the Área de Derecho Internacional Privado of Univ. Carlos III of Madrid under the editorship of Alfonso Luis Calvo-Caravaca (Univ. Carlos III) and Javier Carrascosa-González (Univ. of Murcia), has been recently published. It contains seventeen articles, shorter articles and casenotes, encompassing a wide range of topics in conflict of laws, conflict of jurisdictions and uniform law, all freely available for download. The journal’s website provides a very useful search function, by which contents can be browsed by issue of publication, author, title, keywords, abstract and fulltext.

Here’s the table of contents of issue 2/2011 (each contribution is accompanied by an abstract in English):


  • José Mª Alcántara, Frazer Hunt, Svante O. Johansson, Barry Oland, Kay Pysden, Milos Pohunek, Jan Ramberg, Douglas G. Schmitt, William Tetley, C.M.Q.C, Julio Vidal, A Blue Print for a Worldwide Multimodal Regime;
  • Nuno Andrade Pisarra, Breves considerações sobre a lei aplicável ao contrato de seguro;
  • María José Cervell Hortal, Pacientes en la Unión Europea: libertad restringida y vigilada;
  • Sara Lidia Feldstein de Cárdenas, Luciane Klein Vieira, La noción de consumidor en el Mercosur;
  • Pietro Franzina, The law applicable to divorce and legal separation under Regulation (EU) no. 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010;
  • Federico F. Garau Sobrino, Las fuentes españolas en materia de obligaciones alimenticias. ¿Hacia un Derecho Internacional Privado extravagante?;
  • Cesáreo Gutiérrez Espada, La adhesión española (2011) a la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre las inmunidades jurisdiccionales de los Estados y de sus bienes (2005);
  • Francesco Seatzu, La proposta per la riforma del Regolamento «Bruxelles I» e i provvedimenti provvisori;
  • Sara Tonolo, L’Italia e il resto del mondo nel pensiero di Pasquale Stanislao Mancini.


  • Ana-Paloma Abarca Junco, Marina Vargas-Gómez Urrutia, Vecindad civil de la mujer casada: nuevas reflexiones en torno a la inconstitucionalidad sobrevenida del art. 14.4 C.c. y la retroactividad de la Constitución española en relación a los modos de adquisición de su vecindad civil;
  • Elisa Baroncini, La politica cinese sulle esportazioni dinanzi al sistema di risoluzione delle controversie dell’OMC: il report del Panel nel caso China – Raw Materials;
  • Pilar Juárez Pérez, La inevitable extensión de la ciudadanía de la Unión: a propósito de la STJUE de 8 de marzo de 2011 (asunto Ruiz Zambrano);
  • Carlos Llorente Gómez de Segura, “Forum non conveniens” revisited: el caso Spanair;
  • Pilar Maestre Casas, El pasajero aéreo desprotegido: obstáculos a la tutela judicial en litigios transfronterizos por incumplimientos de las compañías aéreas (A propósito de la STJUE de 9 julio 2009, Rehder, As. C-204/08);
  • María Dolores Ortiz Vidal, Ilonka Fürstin von Sayn-Wittgenstein: una princesa en el Derecho internacional privado;
  • Esther Portela Vázquez, La Convención de la UNESCO sobre la Protección del Patrimonio Subacuático. Principios Generales;
  • Alessandra Zanobetti, Employment contracts and the Rome Convention: the Koelzsch ruling of the European Court of Justice.

(Many thanks to Federico Garau, Conflictus Legum blog, for the tip-off)

European Parliament’s Workshop on the Brussels I Proposal (rescheduled)

The workshop organized by the EP JURI Committee on the review of the Brussels I regulation, originally scheduled on 20 September 2011 (see our previous posts here and here) is taking place in Brussels this morning (h 10.00 – 12.00).

The live video streaming is broadcasted on this page. The link to the recorded session can be found here.

European Parliament’s Workshop on the Brussels I Proposal (20 September 2011) – Study on the Interpretation of the Public Policy Exception in EU PIL

On Tuesday, 20 September 2011, the EP Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) will host in Brussels a workshop on the review of the Brussels I regulation. The round table, chaired by Tadeusz Zwiefka (EP rapporteur on the Brussels I proposal), will be followed by the presentation of the study “Interpretation of the Public Policy Exception as referred to in EU Instruments of Private International and Procedural Law”, prepared by Prof. Burkhard Hess and Prof. Thomas Pfeiffer (Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg) on behalf of the Commission. Here’s the programme:

[UPDATE: the live video streaming of the workshop will be broadcasted on this page. The recorded session will be later available in the EP’s Multimedia Library]

9:00 – 9:10 Welcome and opening remarks by Tadeusz Zwiefka, Rapporteur.

9:10 – 10:20 Analysis of the main elements of reform of Brussels I Regulation – Round Table:

  • Professor Burkhard Hess, Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privat- und Wirtschaftsrecht der Ruprecht-Karls-Universität
  • Heidelberg;
  • Professor Marie-Laure Niboyet, Université Paris X-Nanterre;
  • Professor Horatia Muir-Watt, Sciences-Po Law School, Paris;
  • Professor Ilaria Pretelli, Università degli Studi di Urbino “Carlo Bo”;
  • Alexander Layton QC of the Bar of England and Wales;
  • Professor Andrew Dickinson, University of Sydney, solicitor advocate (England and Wales), consultant to Clifford Chance LLP;
  • Florian Horn, partner and attorney at law, Brauneis Klauser Prändl law firm.

10:20 – 11:00 Questions and answers.

11:00 – 11:10 Presentation of the Study on the “Interpretation of the Public Policy Exception as referred to in EU Instruments of Private International and Procedural Law” by Professor Burkhard Hess and Professor Thomas Pfeiffer, Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privat- und Wirtschaftsrecht der Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg.

11:10 – 11:20 Questions and answers.

11:20 – 11:30 Closing remarks by the Rapporteur.

(Many thanks to Prof. Koji Takahashi for providing the links to the video sessions)