Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:13:19.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Brussels I Regulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Wendy Kennett
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On 22 December 2000, the Council of the European Union finally adopted Regulation 44/2001, which transforms the Brussels I Convention into a Community law instrument, pursuant to Arts. 61(c) and 67(1) of the EC Treaty. The basic framework of the Regulation remains similar to that of the Convention, although there are numerous changes on points of detail and some on matters of substance.

Type
Research Article
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , July 2001 , pp. 725 - 737
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Denmark has, however, expressed an interest in the conclusion of an agreement allowing it to apply the rules laid down in this Regulation.

2. Certain provisions of the Brussels I Convention that are only applicable to Denmark are therefore absent from the Regulation.

3. See the “Programme of measures for implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in civil and commercial matters” (O.J. C12 of 15.1.2001).

4. [1988] E.C.R. 5565.

5. The final text is little changed from a proposed version that was the subject of comment in (2000) 49 I.C.L.Q. 503–504.Google Scholar

6. A reaction that is also being reproduced in the context of proposals for European rules on choice of law in non-contractual matters, apparently with little regard for the fact that the present national law rules are also predominantly pro-consumer.

7. See the discussion in Newtherapeutics Ltd v. Katz [1991] Ch. 226.

8. Case Case 129/83, Zelger v. Salinitri [1984] E.C.R. 2397.

9. See further below.

10. See for this gloss on the former Art. 27(1), Case C–7/98, Krombach v. Bamberski, The Times, 30 March 2000.

11. Case C–123/91, [1992] E.C.R. 1–5661.

12. Explanatory Memorandum.

13. There is no reference to action being taken by “the appropriate officer of the court” in the new version, which is in keeping with a possible shift of responsibility to an administrative authority.

14. Considered above in the context of jurisdiction.

15. Council Reg. 1348/2000 (O.J. 2000 L 160/37).

16. See in particular Case C–398/92, Firma Mund & Fester v. Firma Hatrex Internationaal Transport [1994] E.C.R. 1–467.

17. Under Art. 68 a reference may be made by the Council, the Commission or a Member State.

18. See further Kennett, W. Enforcement of Judgments in Europe (OUP 2000).Google Scholar