Tag Archive for: Brussels I

Publication: Biagioni, “La connessione attributiva di giurisdizione nel regolamento CE n. 44/2001”

/in /by

Giacomo Biagioni (Univ. of Cagliari) has recently published “La connessione attributiva di giurisdizione nel regolamento CE n. 44/2001” (CEDAM, 2011). The volume is the latest in the series “Studi di diritto internazionale – Studies in international law“, focused on international procedural law and international civil procedure law, promoted by the Fondazione Gaetano Morelli, a foundation dedicated to the memory of one of the most influential Italian international law scholars of the past century.

An abstract has been kindly provided by the author (the complete table of contents is available on the publisher’s website):

Both in civil law and in common law systems, reference is made to connexity when it is deemed advisable to defer to one court related claims so that they may be jointly examined and adjudicated. Connexity can also work as a head of jurisdiction: in those cases a State is conferred jurisdiction on one claim («related claim») since it is connected to another claim («main claim») that falls already under the jurisdiction of that State.
The book addresses that category of provisions as enshrined in the EC regulation No 44/2001, evaluating their scope of application, their conditions of application and their effects. Those heads of jurisdiction fit especially well into the EC regulation No 44/2001. The book emphasises that the principle of free circulation of judgments is the main objective pursued by the regulation and that even the system of provisions about jurisdictional competence must be interpreted in the light of that aim.
In the regulation No 44/2001 the notion of “related actions” may then have two different meanings: some provisions (mainly article 6) recall the connectedness between two claims as a ground for conferring jurisdiction to one court over both claims; article 28 enables the court second seised to stay proceedings while the proceedings in the State first seised come to an end. Even though those provisions operate differently, they pursue two common purposes, namely they aim at preventing the risk of irreconcilable judgments and contribute to procedural economy. The book argues for a broad interpretation of heads of jurisdiction based on connexity, insofar they can lead to improve the sound administration of justice and to avoid conflicting judgments.
However, it must be borne in mind that the regulation No 44/2001 does not consider connexity a general head of jurisdiction. It contains some special provisions about connected claims; those provisions differ from each other for their scope of application ratione materiae and for their procedural requirements. Even the notion of connectedness does not have a uniform meaning in the regulation: every single provision emphasises different functions of the jurisdiction on the ground of connexity. Some provisions are especially aimed at preventing irreconcilable judgments, like article 6(1) of the regulation; others have a wider scope and pursue procedural economy, like article 6(2). However, those heads of jurisdiction are subject to some limits. In particular, the jurisdiction should not be conferred on the ground of connexity, whenever a provision of the regulation inspired by more prominent values (like the protection of the weaker party, the sovereignty of Member States in some matters and the principle of party autonomy) is applicable.

Title: “La connessione attributiva di giurisdizione nel regolamento CE n. 44/2001“, by Giacomo Biagioni, CEDAM (Padova), 2011,  XIV – 268 pages.

ISBN: 978-88-13-30763-9. Price: EUR 27. Available at CEDAM.

Franzina on Jurisdiction Regarding Rights in Rem in Moveable Property in the Brussels I Review

/3 Comments/in /by

Pietro Franzina (University of Ferrara) has posted “The Proposed New Rule of Special Jurisdiction Regarding Rights in Rem in Moveable Property: A Good Option for a Reformed Brussels I Regulation?” on SSRN.  The abstract reads:

On 14 December 2010, the European Commission published a proposal for the recasting of regulation No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I). The proposal purports, inter alia, to add a provision granting non-exclusive jurisdiction “as regards rights in rem and possession in moveable property” to “the courts for the place where the property is situated”. The paper examines the scope of application of the proposed new rule and the connecting factor it employs, in an attempt to determine whether it would be a useful addition to the existing rules on jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters in Europe. It concludes that, although it may in some cases (and subject to some conditions) serve the goals of proximity of predictability underlying the special heads of jurisdiction of the Brussels I regulation, the provision would bring more disadvantages than advantages, and suggests that the Commission’s proposal in this respect should better be abandoned.

The article is forthcoming in “Diritto del Commercio Internazionale” (issue 3/2011).

Italian Forum on the Brussels I Review Proposal (2): Lis Pendens and Related Actions

/in /by

Following our previous post on the forum on the Brussels I review currently hosted by the website of the Italian Society of International Law (SIDI-ISIL), another comment has been added, on the amendments proposed by the Commission in respect of lis pendens and related actions. The contribution is authored by Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti (University of Rome “La Sapienza”), who has recently published an extensive monograph on the regime of lis pendens and related actions in Italian law, in the European regulations and in other international instruments (Litispendenza e connessione internazionale. Strumenti di coordinamento tra giurisdizioni statali in materia civile, Napoli, 2008):

Convergence and Divergence in Private International Law – Liber Amicorum Kurt Siehr

/in /by

As we pointed out in a previous post, a very rich collection of essays in honor of Prof. Kurt Siehr on his 75th birthday has been recently published by Eleven International Publishing and Schulthess, under the editorship of Katharina Boele-Woelki, Talia Einhorn, Daniel Girsberger and Symeon Symeonides: Convergence and Divergence in Private International Law – Liber Amicorum Kurt Siehr. A previous Festschrift was dedicated to Prof. Siehr in 2000: “Private Law in the International Arena – From National Conflict Rules Towards Harmonization and Unification: Liber amicorum Kurt Siehr” (see Google Books).

Here’s the table of contents:

Part I: General Aspects of PIL Law-Making.

  • Talia Einhorn, American vs. European Private International Law – The Case for a Model Conflict of Laws Act (MCLA);
  • Peter Hay, Comparative and International Law in the United States – Mixed Signals;
  • Herbert Kronke, Connecting Factors and Internationality in Conflict of Laws and Transnational Commercial Law;
  • Jim Nafziger, Democratic Values in the Choice-of-Law Process;
  • Anton K. Schnyder, Keine Berührungsangst des Schweizerischen Bundesgerichts im Umgang mit Eingriffsnormen;
  • Frank Vischer, ‘Revolutionary ideas’ and the Swiss Statute on Private International Law;
  • Jun Yokoyama, Renvoi in Japanese Private International Law.

Read more

Brussels I Review: Responses to the Commission’s Green Paper

/in /by

The contributions received by the European Commission in response to the Green Paper on the review of the Brussels I reg. (published in April 2009 together with the Commission’s report on its application: see our post here) have been recently published on the DG FSJ website.

Over 120 contributions have been collected, from Member States’ governments, parliaments and other public authorities, third States (Switzerland), commercial, financial and civil society organisations, NGOs, and the legal and academic sector.

Readers of this blog had the opportunity to read in draft the excellent contribution prepared by Andrew Dickinson, and some comments and responses to his analysis (see this post by Prof. Jonathan Hill and this one by Martin Illmer and Ben Steinbrück).

Among the recent academic initiatives on the review of reg. 44/2001, see also our post on the latest issue of IPRax (2/2010), where some of the papers presented at the conference held in Heidelberg in December 2009 have been published. A two-day conference, organized by the Spanish Presidency of the EU, will be held in Madrid on 15 and 16 March 2010: “Bruselas I: La reforma de la litigación internacional en Europa“.

(Many thanks to Federico Garau – Conflictus Legum – and Rafael Arenas – Àrea de Dret Internacional Privat)

Conference: “Tendenze e resistenze all’uniformazione del diritto privato e del diritto processuale civile nell’Unione europea” (Padova, 17-18 September)

/in /by

UniPD-LogoGiurisOn 17 and 18 September 2009 the Faculty of Law of the University of Padova, in collaboration with the Bar Councils of Padova and Triveneto, will host an international conference on current trends and resistances in the uniformization of European private law and civil procedural law, organised by Profs. Marco De Cristofaro and M. Laura Picchio Forlati on the occasion of the 19th annual meeting of the European Group for Private International Law (GEDIP-EGPIL): “Tendenze e resistenze all’uniformazione del diritto privato e del diritto processuale civile nell’Unione europea“. Here’s the programme (.pdf version):

First session – Thursday 17 September (h 15-18): Diritto internazionale privato e diritto uniforme alla prova del diritto europeo dei contratti

Chair: Nicolò Lipari (Univ. of Rome “La Sapienza”)

  • Andrea Giardina (Univ. of Rome “La Sapienza”): Il concorso di metodi alternativi di uniformazione nel diritto europeo dei contratti;
  • Jürgen Basedow (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg): Lex mercatoria e diritto internazionale privato europeo dei contratti – un’analisi economica;
  • Fabrizio Marrella (Univ. of Venice): L’autonomia contrattuale tra diritto internazionale privato europeo e codice europeo dei contratti;
  • Erik Jayme (Univ. of Heidelberg): La violazione del diritto d’autore: giurisdizione e legge applicabile (Bruxelles I, Roma I e II).

Second session – Friday 18 September (h 9.30-13): Il mutuo riconoscimento delle sentenze straniere nel confronto/scontro tra diritto processuale inglese e diritti processuali continentali

Chair: Kurt Siehr (Univ. of Zürich)

  • Trevor Hartley (London School of Economics and Political Science): Asset freezing orders in the context of recognizing judgments from other EU States and from third countries;
  • Alberto Malatesta (University “Carlo Cattaneo” – LIUC of Castellanza): Il riconoscimento delle sentenze rese dal giudice competente a norma della Convenzione dell’Aja sulla scelta del foro;
  • Andrea Gattini (Univ. of Padova): Il riconoscimento in Europa delle sentenze in tema di punitive damages;
  • Marco De Cristofaro (Univ. of Padova): Ordine pubblico processuale e riconoscimento ed esecuzione delle decisioni nello spazio giudiziario europeo.

Further information and an online registration procedure are available on the conference’s webpage.

(Many thanks to Prof. Fabrizio Marrella)