Brussels Regime

The Brussels Regime is a set of rules regulating the allocation of jurisdiction in international legal disputes of a civil or commercial nature involving persons resident in a member state of the European Union (EU). It has detailed rules assigning jurisdiction for the dispute to be heard, and it governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements.

Overview

The Brussels Regime consists of the Brussels Convention, the Lugano Convention, and the Brussels I Regulation.

# The Brussels Convention, officially the "Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters", (also known as the EEX Convention, presumably standing for European Execution Treaty [ [http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/12/2490711.pdf OECD, "The Second Forum for Asian Insolvency Reform (FAIR)", Bangkok, Thailand 16 – 17 December 2002] , page 2 ] ), was agreed in 1968 by the member states of the EU, with the goal of increasing economic efficiency and promoting the single market by harmonising the rules on jurisdiction and preventing parallel litigation.
# The Lugano Convention, officially the "Convention of 16 September 1988 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters", (also known as the EVEX Convention), is almost identical, and was agreed in 1988 with the then six members of the European Free Trade Association except for Liechtenstein. It is also open for accession by non-member states of EU and EFTA, but no states have done so so far (with the exception of Poland, which acceded to the Lugano Convention before joining the EU).
# The Brussels I Regulation officially the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (or Council Reg (EC) 44/2001 for short). In the European Union, the two earlier conventions have largely been supplanted by this Regulation which is directly applicable to all EU member states. The Regulation makes some changes to the Brussels Convention, but is generally very similar. The Regulation entered into force on March 1, 2002. [ European Commission web site, [http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/civil/acquis/doc_civil_acquis_en.htm "Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters - Acquis JHA 2003 (Justice and Home Affairs)". Consolidated version.] Retrieved on August 28, 2006]

All three legal instruments are broadly similar in content, but there are some differences. In general, it is the domicile of the defendant that determines which of these instruments applies in a given case. The Brussels I Regulation is applicable where the defendant is domiciled in a member state of the European Union. Until 1 July 2007 this did not include Denmark — however an agreement was made between Denmark and the European Community extending the provisions of the regulation to Denmark. [cite web|url=http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/977&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=fr|title=The European Community and Denmark further judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters as two agreements enter into force|accessdate=2007-11-09] The Lugano Convention is applicable when the defendant is domiciled in Iceland, Norway, or Switzerland. Where the recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgement is concerned, the applicable instrument is determined in analogous fashion by the country of origin of the judgement.

Scope and content

The Brussels Regime covers legal disputes of a civil or commercial nature (article 1). There are some exceptions limiting the scope of this; where the principal matter of a dispute is one of family law, bankruptcy or insolvency, social security, or relates to arbitration, the case is not subject to the rules.

Article 2 prescribes that a person (legal or natural) may only be sued in the member state in which he or she is domiciled. Domicile is determined by the law of the national court hearing the case, so that a person can be domiciled in more than one state simultaneously.

Article 4 preserves the traditional rules for defendants who are not domiciled in a member state. That is, if a defendant is domiciled elsewhere, then the Regime does not apply and the national court hearing the case is left to determine jurisdiction based on the traditional rules otherwise governing such questions in their legal system. Article 4 also allows a person domiciled in any member state to take advantage of another member state's exorbitant bases of jurisdiction on the same basis as a national of that state. This is useful in cases where a member state, such as France, allows its nationals to sue anyone in their courts, so that someone domiciled in a member state like Finland may sue someone domiciled in a non-member state like Canada, in the courts of a third party member state, like France, where the defendant may have assets.

The Brussels Convention and the Brussels I Regulation are both subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on questions of interpretation. The Lugano Convention lacks a protocol governing references to the ECJ. Although the interpretations of other national courts, and of the ECJ in the case of Lugano Convention contracting states, are influential, they are not binding, and so various divergences have arisen between member states in the interpretation of the instruments.

It is also to be noted that the Brussels Regime generally allows jurisdiction clauses, which preserves the right of parties to reach agreement at the time of contracting as to which court should govern any dispute.

The Regime applies only in the courts of signatory states, so there is nothing to prevent a non-party state from allowing parallel proceedings in their courts, although this may contribute to a finding of "forum non conveniens", which would in practice halt an action.

Landmark cases

* European Court of Justice
** C-189/87, "Athanasios Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schröder, Münchmeyer, Hengst and Co. and others" [http://europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=61987J0189]
** C-4/03, "GAT, Gesellschaft für Antriebstechnik mbH & Co. KG against LuK Lamellen und Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs KG" [http://europa.eu/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/c_055/c_05520030308en00140014.pdf Referral]
** C-539/03, "Roche Nederland BV v Dr FJ Primus and Dr MD Goldenberg" [http://europa.eu/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2004/c_059/c_05920040306en00110011.pdf Referral]

Notes

Further reading and primary sources

* Emma Barraclough, "Supreme Court sinks Italian torpedo", Managing Intellectual Property, May 3, 2004
* [http://ipgeek.blogspot.com/2008/03/is-their-after-life-for-pan-european.html "Is there an After-Life for Pan European Injunctions?"] , IPEG blog, March 27, 2008

See also

* Spider in the web doctrine
* Cross-border injunction
* Enforcement of European patents
* Private international law
* Jurisdiction
* Implementation in UK law
** Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
** Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1991
* Rome Convention the choice of law to be made in contract disputes
* Rome II Regulation the choice of law to be made in tort and delict disputes

External links

* [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:41968A0927(01):EN:HTML Brussels Convention] ( [1972] OJ L/299/32)
* [http://curia.europa.eu/common/recdoc/convention/en/c-textes/_lug-textes.htm Lugano Convention]
* [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001R0044:EN:HTML Brussels I Regulation] ( [2001] OJ L/12/1)
* [http://curia.europa.eu/common/recdoc/convention/en/index.htm Recent case-law relating to the Brussels and Lugano Conventions on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters] (on http://curia.europa.eu)