Article contents
Forum Non Conveniens in Europe
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
Extract
Various authors have drawn attention to the fact that a new European law of civil procedure is in the process of being created. The kernel of this new law is the 1968 Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. Further areas of law are in part harmonised by the 1965 Hague Service Convention and the 1970 Hague Evidence Convention. While a certain set of “core” European rules has been established, there remains a penumbra: an area within which it is unclear how far traditional national rules may retain a role.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1995
References
1 See, for example, Volken, P., “The Lugano Convention in the framework of legal unification in Europe”, in Carpenter et al. The Lugano and San Sebastian Conventions (London 1990)Google Scholar. The titles of a number of books on civil procedure in Europe also suggest that there is such a thing as European Civil Procedure. See, for example, O'Malley, S., and Layton, A., European Civil Practice (London 1987)Google Scholar; Kropholler, J., Europaisches Zivilprozefirecht, 2nd. ed. (Heidelberg 1987)Google Scholar.
2 For the sake of simplicity I have throughout this article discussed this problem in relation to English law and the English courts. Naturally, similar considerations are also relevant to the other parts of the United Kingdom and to Ireland where the doctrine of forum non conveniens is applied.
3 The definition given by Goff, Lord in Spiliada Maritime Corpn. v. Cansulex Ltd. (The Spiliada) [1987] 1 A.C. 460Google Scholar.
4 For further discussion and a range of conflicting views about the utility of the doctrine see, interalia, Schuz, R., “Controlling Forum-shopping: the Impact of MacShannon v. Rockware Glass Ltd.”(1986) 35 I.C.L.O. 374 (written before the decision in The Spiliada); Robertson, “Forum non conveniens in America and England: ‘A rather fantastic fiction’” (1987) 103 L.Q.R. 398; Slater, “Forum non conveniens: a view from the shop floor” (1988) 104 L.Q.R. 554Google Scholar; Briggs, A., “Conflict of Laws: Postponing the Future?” (1989)Google Scholar 9 O.J.L.S. 251; Fawcett, J., “Trial in England or Abroad: The Underlying Policy Considerations” (1989) 9 O.J.L.S. 205Google Scholar.
5 Where the jurisdiction of the court first seised has not yet been established, however, any other court must stay its proceedings and await the outcome of the jurisdictional enquiry. This avoids the possibility that the second court seised may decline jurisdiction on the basis of Article 21 only to find later that the first court seised concludes that it has no jurisdiction and that the parties are left without a forum. The meaning of the “same cause of action and the same parties” has been considered in two decisions of the European Court of Justice: Case 144/86, Gubisch Maschinenfabrik v. Palumbo [1987] E.C.R. 4861, and Case C-tO6/92, The Maciej Rataj [1994] E.C.R. 1–5439.
6 Article 22 (3) states: “For the purposes of this Article, actions are deemed to be related where they are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings”. The structure of Articles 21 and 22 makes it plain that Article 21 takes priority and Article 22 only applies where the proceedings do not involve the same cause of action and the same parties.
7 The Act which gives effect to the 1968 Brussels Convention.
8 Entered on the register of the European Court of Justice as Case C–314/92. The decision of the Court of Appeal in this case is reported at [1992] Ch. 72; [1991] 4 All E.R. 334; [1991] ILPr 331.
9 See Gaudemet-Tallon, H., “‘Forum non conveniens’, une menace pour la convention de Bruxelles? (A propos de trois arrêts anglais récents)”, Revue critique de droil international privé 1991, 491 (hereafter Rev. crit.)Google Scholar.
10 See especially Fentiman, R., “Jurisdiction, Discretion and the Brussels Convention” (1993) 26 Cornell International Law Journal 59Google Scholar.
11 See e.g. Kropholler, J., Handbuch des International Zivilverfahrensrechts (Tübingen 1982), vol. I, ch. HI, p. 282Google Scholar.
12 This point is of course recognised in some writings e.g. Lagarde, P., “Le principe de proximité dans le droit international privé contemporain”, Hague Recueil 1986 I 11 at 154Google Scholar.
13 Thus H. Gaudemet-Tallon, op.cit. note 9 above, accepting that forum non conveniens may have a role to play in cases where jurisdiction is based on one of the Brussels Convention criteria, discusses the application of the doctrine when jurisdiction is based on Article 18 of the Convention: the submission of the defendant!
14 In relation to forum non conveniens, Fawcett, J. (”Trial in England or Abroad: The Underlying Policy Considerations” (1989)Google Scholar 9 O.J.L.S. 205) highlights some of the public interest factors that may be relevant, and are explicitly taken into account in the United States. However the English courts do not normally explicitly identify public interest considerations.
15 See for example French Nouveau Code de Procédure Civile (hereafter NCPC) Article 21; Italian Codice di Procedura Civile Article 183.
16 See for example, Italian Codice di Procedura Civile Articles 188 and 244 et seq.; NCPC Articles 199 et seq.; German Zivilprozeβordnung (hereafter ZPO) §§ 355 and 373 et seq.
17 See for example, NCPC Article 132; ZPO §§ 420–423.
18 See for example, NCPC Articles 138–142; ZPO §§ 422–123 and 429; Italian Codice di Procedura Civile Articles 210–11 and 118.
19 See for example, NCPC Articles 262 et seq.; ZPO §§ 402 et seq.; Italian Codice di Procedura Civile Articles 61–64 and 191 et seq.
20 NCPC Article 269.
21 French NCPC Article 271.
22 See ZPO §§ 286, 287, 144.
23 ZPO § 402 in combination with § 379.
24 See Jonas, SteinKommentar zur Zivilprozeβordnung 21st ed. (Tubingen 1989)Google Scholar vor § 402 III, para 6.
25 See Fentiman, R., “Foreign Law in English Courts” (1992)Google Scholar108 L.Q.R. 142 with further references.
26 See for Italy Mucci v. Kowalski, Cass. 23 February 1978 no. 903, Rivista di diritto internazionale private e processuale 1978, 814 (hereafter RDIPP), but cf. De Santi v. Bruno e Delia Casa Cass. 21 March 1980 no. 1906 RDIPP 1981, 499. In France the position remains unclear following recent decisions of the French Cour de cassation requiring courts to determine of their own motion which law applies to a dispute: Cass. civ. 11 and 18 October 1988, Clunet 1989, 349 (note D. Alexandre), Rev. crit. 1989, 368Google Scholar. For further commentary see in particular Lequette, Y., “L'abandon de la jurisprudence Bisbal”, Rev. crit. 1989, 277Google Scholar; Gaudemet-Tallon, H., “Le régime de la loi étrangére en France aprés les arrêts des 11 et 18 octobre 1988”, in Travaux du Comité français de droit international privé (1990–1991) 19Google Scholar; Ponsard, A., “L'office du juge et l'application de droit étranger,” Rev. crit. 1990, 607Google Scholar. On the other hand the German ZPO contains a specific provision dealing with the obligation of courts to investigate the content of foreign law. § 293 ZPO states that “the law applying in another state, customary laws and statutes require proof only to the extent that they are not known to the court. In identifying these legal rules the court is not restricted to the evidence presented by the parties; it is authorised to use other sources of information as well and to make whatever orders are necessary for this purpose” (author's translation). The mechanisms for complying with this provision are described in Stein/Jonas, op. cit. § 293 IV.
27 For Germany see Stein/Jonas, op. cit. § 293 IV para 2 b). For Italy see Rubino-Sammartano, M., “II giudice nazionale di fronte alia legge straniera”, RDIPP 1991, 315Google Scholar. For France see the works cited above in note 26.
28 See also Lindblom, and Watson, , “Complex Litigation—A Comparative Perspective” (1993)Google Scholar 12 C.J.Q. 33 which indicates that complex litigation is a rare phenomenon in most European countries but is on the increase.
29 Article 5(1) states: “A person domiciled in a Contracting State may, in another Contracting State, be sued … in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question”.
30 Article 5(3) states: “A defendant domiciled in a Contracting State may, in another Contracting State, be sued … in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred”.
31 See below at text accompanying notes 73 and 83.
32 See Gaudemet-Tallon, H., “Nationalisme et compétence judiciaire: Déclin ou renouveau?” Travaux du Comité français de droit international privé (1987–1988) 171Google Scholar.
33 The turning point was the Patiño case, Cass. civ. 21 June 1948, Rev. crit. 1949, 557 (note P. Francescakis)Google Scholar. For further details see Kennett, W., “Harmonization and the Judgments Convention: Historical Influences” (1993) 1 E.R.P.L. 37 at 47 et seq.Google Scholar
34 Cass. civ., 6 February 1985, Simitch Clunet 1985, 460 (note A. Huet)Google Scholar.
35 But see below at p. 571.
36 Geimer, P., Internationales Zivilprozeβrecht (Köln 1987), pp. 52, 72, 370Google Scholar.
37 § 14 GG.
38 The Italian Constitution (Article 25) states that no-one may be deprived of their natural judge, designated by law. This is interpreted as meaning that jurisdiction cannot be determined after proceedings have been commenced and thus may be relied on as an argument against the use of discretion. The French Constitution of 1848 (Article 4) contained a similar provision but French commentary indicates that no clear meaning was accorded to the term “natural judge”: Holleaux, D., Competénce dujuge éntranger et reconnaissance des jugements (Paris 1970)Google Scholar; Hudault, J., “Sens et portée de la compétence du juge naturel dans l'ancien droit français” Rev. crit. 1972, 27 and 249Google Scholar; Gaudemet-Tallon, H., op. cit. note 32 above. Cf. the use of the concept of a natural judge in Cass. civ. 24 November 1987, Rev. crit. 1988, 364 (note G. Droz), Clunet 1988, 793Google Scholar (note E. Loquin) discussed below at text accompanying note 101.
39 See Schlosser, P., “Forum non conveniens' wegen Inaktivitat der Prozeβbeteiligten?” Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrecht 1983, 285Google Scholar (hereafter IP Rax) The idea that the courts have a duty to exercise jurisdiction in any case in which the law confers jurisdiction upon them is not alien to Anglo-American law. See Gibb, , The International Law of Jurisdiction in England and Scotland (1926), p. 220Google Scholar; Stein, A., “Forum non conveniens and the Redundancy of Court-Access Doctrine” (1985) 133 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 781; Hyde v. Stone 61 U.S. (20 How.) 170 (1857); Canada Malting v. Paterson S.Ss Ltd. 285 U.S. 413 (1932); Rogers v. Guaranty Trust Co. 288 U.S. 123 (1933); Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Kepner 314 U.S. 44 (1941) Williams v.Green Bay & WRR 326 U.S. 549 (1946)Google Scholar.
40 See Lagarde, P., op. cit. note 12 above at p. 153Google Scholaret seq.; Geimer, P., Internationales Zivilprozebβrecht (Köhl 1987), p. 214Google Scholar; Kropholler, J., Handbuch des Internationalen Ziviherfahrensrechts (Tübingen 1982), vol. IGoogle Scholar, ch. Ill, nos. 207 et seq. with further references.
41 See e.g. Case 129/83, Siegfried Zelger v. Sebastiano Salinitri [1984] E.C.R. 2397; Case C-214/89, Powell Duffryn v. Wolfgang Petereit [1992] E.C.R. 1–1745; Case C–26/91, Jakob Handle & Co GmbH v. Soc. traitements mecano-chimiques des surfaces [1992] E.C.R. 1–3967; Case C-288/92, Custom Made Commercial Ltd. v. Stawa Metallbau GmbH [1994] E.C.R. 1–2913.
42 Kohler, C., “Staatsvertragliche Bindungen bei der Ausübung internationaler Zuständigkeit und richterliches Ermessen—Bemerkungen zur Harrods-Entscheidung des englischen Court of Appeal” in Ballon, and Hagen, (eds), Verfahrensgarantien im nalionalen und inlernationalen Prozeβrecht: Festschrift Franz Malscher (Vienna 1993)Google Scholar.
43 See for example, Kohler, C., op. cit. note 42 above; Tebbens, H. Duintjer, “The English Court of Appeal in Re Harrods: An Unwelcome Interpretation of the Brussels Convention”, in Sumampouw et al (eds), Law and Reality: Essays on National and International Procedural Law in Honour of Cornells Caret Albert Voskuil (Dordrecht 1992)Google Scholar; Geimer, P., “The Right of Access to the Courts under the Brussels Convention”, in Tebbens, H., Kennedy, T., Kohler, C. (eds), Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments in Europe: Proceedings of the colloquium on the Interpretation of the Judgments Convention by the Court of Justice considered in the context of the European Judicial Area (London 1992)Google Scholar; Struycken, A.V.M., “Jurisdiction According to the EEC Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments” (1978)Google Scholar N.I.L.R. 354; Matscher, F., “Etude des régies de compétence judiciaire dans certaines conventions internationales” Hague Receuil 1978 III 127Google Scholar.
44 Assuming that Turkey can exercise jurisdiction under its own domestic rules.
45 On the basis of Article 2 of the Brussels Convention.
46 See for example, Kohler, C., op. cii. note 42 above; Tebbens, H. Duintjer, op. cit. note 43 aboveGoogle Scholar; Droz, G., Competénce judiciaire et effets des jugements dans le marché commun (Paris 1972), p. 108Google Scholar; Gothot, P. and Holleaux, D., La Convention de Bruxelles du 27 September 1968 (Paris 1985), pp. 83–84Google Scholar; H. Gaudemet-Tallon, op. cit. note 9 above.
47 Op. cit. note 43 above at p. 58.
48 See the references cited at notes 39, 40 and 43 above. For recent indications of continued hostility see the comments of R. Geimer (pp. 39–40), E. Jayme (p. 74), J. Schultsz (pp. 102 and 107) and Droz, G. (p. 254) in Tebbens, H., Kennedy, T., Kohler, C. (eds), Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments in Europe: Proceedings of the colloquium on the Interpretation of the Judgments Convention by the Court of Justice considered in the context of the European Judicial Area (London 1992)Google Scholar; C. Kohler, op. cit. note 42 above; H. Duijnter-Tebbens, op. cit. note 3 above.
49 See Fentiman, R., “Jurisdiction, Discretion and the Brussels Convention” (1993) 26 Cornell International Law Journal 59Google Scholar.
50 See Droz, G., op. cit. p. 108Google Scholar; Gothot, P. and Holleaux, D., op. cit. pp. 83–84Google Scholar; H. Gaudemet-Tallon, op. cit. note 9 above.
51 An alternative approach might be to say that the Convention does not directly regulate this problem, since it is nowhere mentioned in the text, but that it does not prevent the operation of national rules that recognise that the court of a non-Contracting State has exclusive jurisdiction. This solution brings less certainty and predictability, however. It leaves open the question as to how far the courts of Contracting States are free to recognise that a non-Contracting State has exclusive jurisdiction.
52 Either because the rule expressed in the Convention is being applied, or through a reference back to national rules, such as forum non conveniens: H. Gaudemet-Tallon, op. cit. note 9 above.
53 See Case C-351/89, Overseas Union Insurance Ltd v. New Hampshire Insurance Co [1991] E.C.R. 1–3317. Cf. the circumstances when it is possible to review the jurisdiction of the State o f origin in cases when recognition of a judgment given in another Contracting State is sought: Article 28.
54 H. Gaudemet-Tallon, op. cit. note 9 above.
55 E.g. Case C-305/88, Lancray v. Peters und Sicken [1990] E.C.R. 1–2725 discussed by Kennett, W., “Reviewing Service: Double Check or Double Fault?” (1992)Google Scholar 11 C.J.Q. 115.
56 See Treaty on European Union, Article K. 1.
57 Section 42.
58 Article 10(2) of the Dutch Civil Code.
59 For a summary of the rules in the various Contracting States see O'Malley, S. and Layton, A., European Civil Practice (London 1987)Google Scholar, chs. 48–58 at para 26 of each chapter.
60 H. Duijnter Tebbens, op. cil. note 43 above at p. 61.
61 [1994] E.C.R. 1–467.
62 See, e.g.. The Albaforth [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 91.
63 SNI Aérospatiale v. Lee Kui Jak [1987] AC. 871.
64 R. Fentiman, op. cit. note 10 above.
65 See for example Piper Aircraft v. Reyno 454 U.S. 235 (1981); Rudetsky v. O'Dowd 660 F. Supp. 341 (E.D.N.Y. 1987).
66 See for example, C. Kohler, op. cit. note 42 above.
67 See Société Commerciale de Réassurance v. Eras International Ltd. (No. 2) [1995] 2 All E.R. 278 at 298 per Potter J.
68 Wahl, , Die verfehlte Internationale Zuständigkeit (Bonn 1972)Google Scholar; Schröder, J., Internationale Zuständigkeit (Opladen 1971)Google Scholar. See also Wengler, W., Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 165 (1965) 370Google Scholar; Siehr, , Rabels Zeitschrift 34 (1970) 629Google Scholar.
69 Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt (hereafter OLG), Zeitschrift für Standesamtswesen 1975, 98Google Scholar.
70 OLG Frankfurt, 15 November 1982, IP Rax 1983, 294Google Scholar.
71 Geimer, R., Internationales Zivilprozeβrecht (Köln 1987), pp. 213–215Google Scholar. Schlosser, P., IP Rax 1983, 285Google Scholar; Kropholler, J., Handbuch des International Zivilverfahrensrechts (Tübingen 1982), vol. 1, p. 279Google Scholar; Schütze, P., Zeitschrift für Zivilprozeβ 88 (1975) 88Google Scholar; Schack, H., “Die Versagung der deutschen internationalen Zuständigkeit wegen forum non conveniens und Us alibipendens” Rabels Zeitschrift 58 (1994) 40Google Scholar; OLG Frankfurt, 12 November 1985, IPRax 1986, 297; OLG Mönchen, 22 June 1983, IP Rax 1984, 319Google Scholar.
72 But cf use of analogous principles by the Landgericht Frankfurt in a commercial case: LG Frankfurt, 26 April 1985 discussed by Löber, IP Rax 1986, 283. The reasoning of the LG was criticised on appeal by the OLG Frankfurt: OLG Frankfurt, 12 November 1985, IP Rax 1986, 297Google Scholar.
73 See Cour d'Appel Paris, 17 November 1987 Mengatti c. Soc. Mettalurgica Nava Stefano e Giuseppina Clunet 1989Google Scholar, 96 (note A. Huet) where the French courts were being requested to grant provisional measures (référé provision) but concluded that Italy was a more appropriate forum. It is clear from the decision that référé provision was considered to be a provisional measure within the meaning of Article 24 of the 1968 Brussels Convention, but it is arguable that such measures do not in fact fall within Article 24 and thus the court would lack jurisdiction as a matter of Community law.
74 E.g. P. Lagarde, op. cit. note 12 above. Moreover at least one French commentator on the Harrods case who is prepared to accept the continued operation of forum non conveniens has assumed that the doctrine might also operate where there is an alternative forum in a Contracting State: see H. Gaudemet-Tallon op. cit. note 9 above. The author considers whether the doctrine should apply when jurisdiction is based on one of the heads of special jurisdiction in Title II of the Brussels Convention—which would only be applicable if the defendant was domiciled in a Contracting State.
75 Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering (WBR).
76 Verheul, J.P., [1981]Google Scholar N.l.L.R. 212.
77 J.P. Verheul, ibid, and (1986) 35 l.C.L.Q. 413.
78 [1981] N.I.L.P. 210. See also Pres. Arrond. Amsterdam, 30 November 1978 considered in Verheul, J.P., [1979] N.l.L.R. 109 at 127–8; Arrond. Rotterdam, 3 December 1974 [1975] N.Y.l.L. 365 (rev'd on appeal by the Court of Appeal at The Hague, 28 February 1975, not reported: see Verheul, J.P., [1981]Google Scholar N.l.L.R. 212). Several of these cases concern the granting of provisional measures.
79 A similar change in approach to the equivalent provision of the Austrian Code of Civil Procedure has also taken place, see Austrian Oberste Gerichtshof 6 June 1991, IP Rax 1992, 164 no. 25(b) (noted by P. Schlosser at p. 140)Google Scholar.
80 See Schlosser, P., “Einschränkung des Vermögensgerichtstandes”, IP Rax 1992Google Scholar, 140. This is particularly remarkable given the fact that Schlosser has been one of the most vocal critics of forum non conveniens.
81 See also Schack, H., op. cit. note 71 above at p. 42Google Scholar.
82 Articles 14 and 15 of the French Civil Code are still relied on in spite of consistent criticism by French commentators. On the other hand the Cour de cassation has begun to insist that, where possible, jurisdiction should be based on one of the heads of jurisdiction enumerated in the Code of Civil Procedure: Cass. civ. 19 November 1985, Clunet 1986, 719 (note A. Huet), Rev. crit. 1986Google Scholar, 712 (note Y. Lequette).
83 Cour d'Appel Chambery, 13 June 1989, Roth v. Syndicat de copropriétaires de I'mmeuble Saint-Georges I et II Clunet 1991, 149 (note A. Huet); Tribunal de commerce Liége, 6 January 1986, Annales de la Faculté de Droit de Liége 1986, 275Google Scholar.
84 Vincent, J. and Guinchard, S., Procédure civile 22nd ed. (Paris 1991), pp. 266el seq.Google Scholar A distinction is made between claims that are connexe and those that are indivisible. In the former case the court has a discretion whether or not to hear the claims together. In the latter case it has an obligation to do so: Solus, H. and Perot, P., Droit judiciaire privé II (Paris 1973), pp. 588–611Google Scholar. Article 51 NCPC is founded on case law: see Chambre des requêtes, 18 June 1945, Dalloz 1946, 7Google Scholar.
85 Solus, H. and Perrot, R., op. cit. pp 588–611Google Scholar.
86 Cass. civ., 12 December 1989, Lejeune c. Soc FAIS Rev. crit. 1990, 358. The extension of this approach to international litigation is of recent origin: Cass. civ., 26 November 1974, Clunet 1975, 108 (note A. Ponsard), Rev. crit. 1975, 491 (note D. Holleaux). See also Holleaux, D., “La litispendance internationale”, in Travaux du Comité francais de droit international privé(1971–1973) p. 203Google Scholar.
87 Gaudemet-Tallon, H., op. cit. note 32 above at p. 181Google Scholar.
88 Cass. civ., 21 June 1948, Patiôo Rev. crit. 1949, 557 (note P. Francescakis), Juris-Classeur Periodique 1948 II 4422 (note P. Lerebours-Pigeonnière), Sirev 1949 1 121 (note J-P. Niboyet)Google Scholar.
89 See Lagarde, P., op. cit. note 12 above at p. 137Google Scholar.
90 See Gaudemet-Tallon, H., op. cit., note 32 aboveGoogle Scholar.
91 See generally Lagarde, P., op. cit. note 12 aboveGoogle Scholar.
92 Cass. civ. 13 June 1978, Rev. crit. 1978, 727 (note B. Audit)Google Scholar.
93 See Batiffol, H. and Lagarde, P., Droit international privé 7th ed. (Paris 1983), vol. II nos. 677 el seq.Google Scholar: Mayer, P., Droit international privé 4th ed. (Paris 1991), p. 202Google Scholar.
94 Cass. civ. 5 November 1968, Bulletin civil 1968 1 204, Juris-Classeur Periodique 1969 IV 3Google Scholar.
95 Cass. civ. 29 January 1980, Juris-Classeur Periodique 1980 IV 144Google Scholar.
96 Cass. civ. 23 April 1959, Dalloz 1959, 377 (note G. Holleaux); Cass. civ. 24 November 1987, Rev. crit. 1988, 364 (note G. Droz), Clunet 1988, 793 (note E. Loquin)Google Scholar.
97 Cass. civ. 5 December 1961, Bulletin civil 1961 I 459Google Scholar.
98 Trib. civ. Liége 9 June 1983, cited in Van der Elst, P. and Weser, M., Droit international privé beige (Brussels 1985), vol. II, pp. 416–7Google Scholar.
99 I.e. that since the assignor had commenced the proceedings in the United States and was thus subject to that jurisdiction, the assignee was similarly subject to that jurisdiction and so could not rely on Article 14 of the Civil Code because there were prior proceedings already pending abroad.
100 Cass. civ. 6 February 1985, Clunet 1985, 460 (note A. Huet)Google Scholar.
101 Clunet 1988Google Scholar, 793 (note E. Loquin at 801), but see the references at note 38 concerning the difficulty of determining the “natural judge”.
102 [1982] E.C.R. 1891.
103 Lagarde, P., op. cit. note 12 above at pp. 153 et seq..Google Scholar
104 Wahl, , Die verfehlte internationale Zuständigkeit (Bonn 1972)Google Scholar. For further discussion of this concept see Allorio, “Rechtsschutzbedürfnis?” Zeitschrift für Zivilprozeβ 67 (1954) 321Google Scholar; Pohle, , “Zur Lehre vom Rechtsschutzbedürfnis”, Festschrift Lent (München 1957), p. 195Google Scholar; Wieser, , Das Rechtsschutzinteresse des Klägers im Zivilprozeβ (1971)Google Scholar. For France see Article 122 NCPC: an action will be inadmissible if the plaintiff lacks any droit d'agir. Article 32–1 NCPC provides for damages for abuse of rights in relation to civil proceedings. See also Solus, H. and Perrot, P., Droit judiciaire privé I (Paris 1961), pp. 112–3Google Scholar on the use of this principle in relation to civil procedure.
105 See H. Gaudemet-Tallon op. cil. note 9 above who considers whether the doctrine should apply when jurisdiction is based on one of the heads of special jurisdiction in Title II of the Judgments Convention—which would only be applicable if the defendant was domiciled in a Contracting State. See also decisions of the French and Belgian courts in which the rules of jurisdiction contained in the Convention have been interpreted in an unusual way to ensure that the competent court was also a court that was appropriately placed to hear the dispute: Cour d'Appel Chambéry, 13 June 1989, Roth c. Syndical de copropriétaires de I'immeuble Saint-Georges I el II Clunet 1991, 149 (note A. Huet); Tribunal de commerce Liége, 6 January 1986, Annales de la Faculté de Droit de Liége 1986, 275Google Scholar.
- 8
- Cited by