Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:18:06.231Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The EEC Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments of 27 September in Dutch Legal Practice*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Hans Verheul
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
The EEC Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments of 24 September in Dutch Legal Practice
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , May 1981 , pp. 68 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1981

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. The Court of Justice might have mentioned Art. 27(4) as well (V).

2. In the version of 13 June 1979, EEC Document III/682/79.

3. Off. Journal EC.C 59 at p. 122.

4. The English version of Art. 21 reads: “proceedings involving the same cause of action”. The Dutch version: “vorderingen … welke hetzelfde onderwerp betreffen en op dezelfde oorzaak berusten” (actions pertaining to the same subject and based on the same cause).

5. Cf., the French version: “des demandes ayant le même objet”. More remote but illustrative, Art. 171 of the French CCPr.: “une demande pour le meme object”, and – on res judicata – Art. 1351 French CCPr.: “II faut que la chose demandée soit la même”.

6. Sup. Ct. 23 November 1917, NJ 1918, 6.

7. Outside the scope of Conventions the question whether or not the foreign procedure has satisfactory provisions for urgent matters, is sometimes treated as relevant: Evans Marshall v. Bertola [1973] 1 WLR 349 CA; Pres. DC Rotterdam 5 February 1968, NJ 1969, 8, NILR 1971, 361.

8. Couchet also sought a new authorization from the German court, called Pfändungsbeschluss. This was the correct way. The decision of the Luxemburg Court does not reveal what happened with this alternative action.