Brussels Regime

Last updated
States applying Brussels regime instruments .mw-parser-output .legend{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}.mw-parser-output .legend-color{display:inline-block;min-width:1.25em;height:1.25em;line-height:1.25;margin:1px 0;text-align:center;border:1px solid black;background-color:transparent;color:black}.mw-parser-output .legend-text{} Brussels regulation, EU-Denmark agreement, Lugano Convention EU-Denmark agreement, Lugano Convention Lugano Convention Brussels regime previously applicable Brussels Regime.svg
States applying Brussels regime instruments
  Brussels regulation, EU-Denmark agreement, Lugano Convention
  EU-Denmark agreement, Lugano Convention
  Lugano Convention
  Brussels regime previously applicable

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012
European Union regulation
Flag of Europe.svg
TitleRegulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast)
Made by European Parliament and Council
Made underArticle 67(4) and points (a), (c) and (e) of Article 81(2) TFEU
Journal reference L351, 20 December 2012, pp. 1-32
History
Date made12 December 2012
Came into force1 January 2013
Implementation date10 January 2015
Other legislation
ReplacesRegulation (EC) No 44/2001
Amended by Regulation (EU) No 542/2014
Current legislation
Regulation (EC) No 44/2001
European Union regulation
Flag of Europe.svg
TitleCouncil Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
Made by Council
Made underArticle 61(c) and Article 67(1) TEC
Journal reference L012, 16 January 2001, pp. 1-23
History
Date made22 December 2000
Came into force1 March 2002
Other legislation
Replaced by(EU) No 1215/2012
Recast with new legislation

The Brussels Regime is a set of rules regulating which courts have jurisdiction in legal disputes of a civil or commercial nature between individuals resident in different member states of the European Union (EU) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). It has detailed rules assigning jurisdiction for the dispute to be heard and governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

Contents

Instruments

Five legal instruments together form the Brussels Regime. All five legal instruments are broadly similar in content and application, with differences in their territory of application. They establish a general rule that individuals are to be sued in their state of domicile and then proceed to provide a list of exceptions. The instruments further provide for the recognition of judgments made in other countries.

Brussels Convention (1968)

Recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial cases was originally accomplished within the European Communities by the 1968 Brussels Convention, a treaty signed by the then six members of the Communities. [1] [2] This treaty was amended on several occasions and was almost completely superseded by a regulation adopted in 2001, the Brussels I Regulation. Today the convention only applies between the 15 pre-2004 members of the European Union and certain territories of EU member states that are outside the Union: Aruba, the French overseas territories and Mayotte. [3] It is intended that the Brussels Convention will be replaced by the new Lugano Convention, the latter being open to ratification by EU member states acting on behalf of non-European territories which belong to that member state.

Lugano Convention (1988)

In 1988, the then 12 member states of the European Communities signed a treaty, the Lugano Convention with the then six members of the European Free Trade Association: Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. [4] [5] The Lugano Convention served to extend the recognition regime to EFTA member state who are not eligible to sign the Brussels Convention. Other than the original signatories–three of which left EFTA to join the EU in 1995–only Poland has subsequently acceded to the Lugano Convention. Liechtenstein, the only state to accede to the EFTA after 1988, has not signed either the 1988 Convention or its successor, the 2007 Lugano Convention. The convention is fully superseded by a 2007 version.

Brussels I Regulation (2001)

The Brussels I Regulation of 2001 was the primary piece of legislation in the Brussels framework from 2002 until January 2015. It substantially replaced the 1968 Brussels Convention, and applied to all EU member states excluding Denmark, which has a full opt-out from implementing regulations under the area of freedom, security and justice. It came into effect on 1 March 2002. [6] The regulation is fully superseded by a recast Brussels I regulation.

Agreement with Denmark

In 2005, Denmark signed an international agreement with the European Community to apply the provisions of the 2001 Regulation between the EU and Denmark. [7] The 2005 agreement applies a modified form of the 2001 Regulation between Denmark and the rest of the EU. It also provides a procedure by which amendments to the regulation are to be implemented by Denmark. It applies the 2001 regulation to Denmark and other EU members from 1 July 2007. [8] Should Denmark decide not to implement any change to the Regulation or its successor, then the Agreement ends automatically.

Lugano Convention (2007)

In 2007, the European Community and Denmark [9] signed with Iceland, Switzerland and Norway the new Lugano Convention. [10] [11] [12] This treaty was intended to replace both the old Lugano Convention of 1988 and the Brussels Convention and as such was open to signature to both EFTA member states and to EU member state on behalf of their extra-EU territories. While the former purpose was achieved in 2011 with the ratification of all EFTA member states (bar Liechtenstein which never signed the 1988 Convention), no EU member state has yet acceded to the convention on behalf of its extra-EU territories.

The 2007 Convention is substantially the same as the 2001 Brussels I Regulation: the main difference being that the word "Regulation" is replaced with the word "Convention" throughout the text. Furthermore, the convention has a slightly different definition of the concept "court" and the 2007 convention is not adapted to the recast of the Brussels Regulation. It is also open to accession by other EFTA states as well as EU states acting on behalf of territories which are not part of the EU. Other states may join subject to approval of the present parties to the treaty. No accessions have taken place so far, [13] [14] but the Kingdom of the Netherlands planned to present to parliament an approval act for accession on behalf of Aruba, Caribbean Netherlands, Curaçao and possibly Sint Maarten in 2014. [15]

Brussels I Regulation (recast)

An amendment to the Brussels I Regulation, covering maintenance obligations, was adopted in 2008. [16] Neither Denmark nor the United Kingdom participated in the regulation, though Denmark notified the Commission of its acceptance of the amendment in January 2009. [17]

In 2012, the EU institutions adopted a recast Brussels I Regulation which replaced the 2001 regulation with effect from 10 January 2015. [18] The recast regulation now also applies to jurisdiction regarding non EU residents, it abolishes formalities for recognition of judgments and simplifies the procedure for a court chosen by the parties to commence proceedings (even if proceedings have started in another member state already). In December 2012 Denmark notified the Commission of its decision to implement the contents of 2012 regulation. [19] The Lugano Convention Standing committee considered amending the Lugano Convention in accordance with the recast, but "made no recommendation on the possible amendment of the Lugano Convention and did not decide on any further steps." [20]

In 2014, the EU amended the Brussels I Regulation to clarify provisions regarding two courts which are "common to several member states": the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice jurisdiction. [21] [22] Denmark again notified the EU that it would apply the amendments. [23] The Lugano Convention Standing Committee considered amending the Lugano Convention with respect to the unitary patent and Unified patent court, but decided to "wait for the results of further study". [20]

Effect in the UK

Until 1 February 2020 all instruments applied in the UK as a result of its EU membership. Until 1 January 2021, under the conditions of the Brexit withdrawal agreement, the instruments remained applicable there, despite Brexit, during a transition period.[ when? ]

The UK has sought participation in the Lugano Convention after Brexit, [24] and has secured support from Iceland, Norway and Switzerland for accession. As of January 2021, the accession had not been approved. [25] In May 2021, the European Commission reported to the European Parliament its view that the European Union should not give consent to the accession of the UK, arguing that "the consistent policy of the European Union (with regard to third-countries) is to promote cooperation within the framework of the multilateral Hague Conventions". [26]

Gibraltar

The Brussels convention of 1968 (as amended) applied between the UK and Gibraltar before Brexit and, in modified form, still applies today. [27]

Scope and content

The Brussels Regime covers legal disputes of a civil or commercial nature. In 1978, the convention was amended to include the sentence: "It shall not extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters." The 2012 Regulation further specifies that the regulation shall not extend to "the liability of the State for acts and omissions in the exercise of State authority (acta iure imperii)." 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.

The regulation aims at jurisdiction, i.e., determining which court or courts will have the ability to take the case. That does not mean that the applicable law will be the law of the court. It is possible and frequent to have a national court applying foreign law. In general, it is the domicile of the defendant that determines which of the courts have jurisdiction in a given case.

The regime prescribes that, subject to specific rules set out in the various instruments, a person (legal or natural) may only be sued in the member state in which he or she has its habitual residence or domicile. This is determined by the law of the court hearing the case, so that a person can be domiciled in more than one state simultaneously. However, "domicile" does not have the same meaning as that given to it by common law. [28]

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, now known as CJEU) on questions of interpretation. The Lugano Convention does not require non-EU states to refer questions of interpretation to the ECJ, but has a protocol regarding "uniform interpretation" of the convention, requiring courts "pay due account to the principles laid down by any relevant decision" and allowing for the exchange of relevant judgments. Nevertheless, various divergences[ which? ] have arisen between member states in the interpretation of the Lugano Convention.

The Brussels Regime generally allows jurisdiction clauses in contracts, which preserves the right of parties to reach agreement at the time of contracting as to which court should govern any dispute. After the 2012 regulation enters into force, such a decision should in principle be respected, even if a court outside the Brussels Regime states is selected and is in compliance with the 2005 Hague Choice of Court convention.

Public policy clauses

Article 27(1) of the Brussels Convention and Article 34(1) of the Brussels Regulation contain a public policy clause (or "public policy exception") which states that judgments should not be recognised "if such recognition is contrary to public policy in the State in which recognition is sought". [1]

See also

Implementation in UK law:

Related Research Articles

Jurisdiction is the legal term for the legal authority granted to a legal entity to enact justice. In federations like the United States, the concept of jurisdiction applies at multiple levels.

The draft European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA), or formally the Draft Agreement on the establishment of a European patent litigation system, was a proposed patent law agreement aimed at creating an "optional protocol to the European Patent Convention (EPC) which would commit its signatory states to an integrated judicial system, including uniform rules of procedure and a common appeal court". It differed from the Unified Patent Court Agreement in that the EPLA negotiations were coordinated from the side of the European Patent Office, rather than from the European Council and Commission and therefore also offered the possibility for non-EU states to participate.

Forum non conveniens (FNC) is a mostly common law legal doctrine through which a court acknowledges that another forum or court where the case might have been brought is a more appropriate venue for a legal case, and transfers the case to such a forum. A change of venue might be ordered, for example, to transfer a case to a jurisdiction within which an accident or incident underlying the litigation occurred and where all the witnesses reside.

In law, the enforcement of foreign judgments is the recognition and enforcement in one jurisdiction of judgments rendered in another ("foreign") jurisdiction. Foreign judgments may be recognized based on bilateral or multilateral treaties or understandings, or unilaterally without an express international agreement.

In modern society, the role of marriage and its termination through divorce have become political issues. As people live increasingly mobile lives, the conflict of laws and its choice of law rules are highly relevant to determine:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982</span> Act transposing 1968 Brussels Convention

The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (c.27) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which was passed to implement the Brussels Convention of 1968 into British law. As well as governing whether the Courts of England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland have jurisdiction to hear cases against defendants in other contracting states, the Act provided a statutory basis for the division of jurisdiction between the three jurisdictions within the UK. No provision was made in 1982 for division of jurisdiction between the UK and Gibraltar; this was rectified by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Gibraltar) Order 1997 which stated that, for the purposes of the 1982 Act, Gibraltar should be treated as a separate contracting state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Service Regulation</span>

The Service Regulation, officially the Council Regulation (EC) No. 1393/2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters, is a European Union regulation in the field of judicial cooperation. It allows service of judicial documents from one member state to another without recourse to consular and diplomatic channels.

The principle of lis alibi pendens applies in municipal law, public international law, and private international law to address the problem of potentially contradictory judgments. If two courts were to hear the same dispute, it is possible they would reach inconsistent decisions. To avoid the problem, there are two rules.

In European Union law, and especially in European intellectual property law, a cross-border injunction is an injunction by a court in one European country, such as for example a court in the Netherlands forbidding infringement in several other European countries.

A preliminary ruling is a decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the interpretation of European Union law that is given in response to a request from a court or a tribunal of a member state. A preliminary ruling is a final determination of European Union law, with no scope for appeal. The ECJ hands down its decision to the referring court, which is then obliged to implement the ruling.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jean-Paul Béraudo</span>

Justice Jean-Paul Beraudo is a lawyer, academic and author of legal works. He was Justice at the French Supreme Court and vice-chairman of the International Court of Arbitration. He lectures on International Private Law and International Trade Law at Panthéon-Sorbonne University and on Company law at Sciences-Po, Paris. The International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) appointed him correspondent for France and a member of the scientific committee.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brussels II</span>

Brussels II Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, which came into force on 1 March 2001, sets out a system for the allocation of jurisdiction and the reciprocal enforcement of judgments between European Union Member States and was modelled on the 1968 Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. It was intended to regulate domains that were excluded from the Brussels Convention and Brussels I. The Brussels II Regulation deals with conflict of law issues in family law between member states; in particular those related to divorce and child custody. The Regulation seeks to facilitate free movement of divorce and related judgments between Member States.

A Minute of Agreement is a legal procedure available in Scotland. It is a document drawn up between two or more parties in the presence of their solicitors, without the need for formal court action. In its usual format, it will contain numbered paragraphs that record formal but legally binding provisions by which each party has agreed to be bound. If it contains any provision which is enforceable in Scotland, it can be registered in other parts of the United Kingdom for recognition and enforcement. A Minute of Agreement can also be registered for recognition and enforcement in EU Member States or non-EU European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries. A separate arrangement applies to Gibraltar. A foreign equivalent may also be known as an Authentic Instrument.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Maintenance regulation</span> Regulation of EU, determining which court has jurisdiction in the event of a conflict

The Maintenance Regulation (EC) No 4/2009, formally the Council Regulation (EC) on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, is a European Union Regulation on conflict of law issues regarding maintenance obligations. The regulation governs which courts have jurisdiction and which law it should apply. It further governs the recognition and enforcement of decisions. The regulation amends the Brussels Regulation, which covers jurisdiction in legal disputes of a civil or commercial nature between individuals more broadly.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hague Choice of Court Convention</span>

The Hague choice of court convention, formally the Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements, is an international treaty concluded within the Hague Conference on Private International Law. It was concluded in 2005, and entered into force on 1 October 2015. The European Union, Denmark, Mexico, Singapore, Ukraine and the United Kingdom are parties to the convention. China, Israel, North Macedonia, Ukraine and the United States signed the convention, but did not ratify.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brussels I Regulation 2012</span>

The Brussels I Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 contains a jurisdictional regime: the rules which courts of European Union Member States use to determine if they have jurisdiction in cases with links to more than one country in the European Union. The basic principle is that the court in the member state of the party that gets sued has jurisdiction, while other grounds exist, which are diverse in content and scope, and are often classified in descending order of exclusivity and specificity. The original Brussels Regulation (44/2001) is, with regard to jurisdiction rules, very similar to the 2007 Lugano Convention, containing the same provisions with the same numbering. Numbering and certain substantial issues are different in the 2012 recast version of the Regulation, which has applied since 1 January 2015 (1215/2012).

Gasser v MISAT (C–116/02) was a decision of the European Court of Justice regarding the interpretation of the Brussels convention of 1968 ruling that a court chosen in a choice of court agreement should stay its proceedings - as any other court chosen second within the Brussels regime - until the court first seized had declared it did not have jurisdiction. The court's decision was considered problematic as it favoured the uniformity of application of the Brussels regime jurisdictional rules temporarily over party autonomy. Due to similar provisions in the 2001 Brussels Regulation and Lugano Conventions, the interpretation also affects choice of court agreements under those later instruments. However, in the 2012 Recast version of the Brussels I Regulation chosen courts can take jurisdiction, even if a court not chosen has been addressed first.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Treaties of the European Union</span>

The Treaties of the European Union are a set of international treaties between the European Union (EU) member states which sets out the EU's constitutional basis. They establish the various EU institutions together with their remit, procedures and objectives. The EU can only act within the competences granted to it through these treaties and amendment to the treaties requires the agreement and ratification of every single signatory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2015 Danish European Union opt-out referendum</span>

A referendum on one of the country's opt-outs from the European Union was held in Denmark on 3 December 2015. Specifically, the referendum was on whether to convert Denmark's current full opt-out on home and justice matters into an opt-out with case-by-case opt-in similar to those held by Ireland and the United Kingdom. Approval of the referendum was needed for Denmark to remain in Europol under the new rules. However, it was rejected by 53% of voters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hague Judgments Convention</span> International treaty

The Hague Judgments Convention, formally the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters is an international treaty concluded within the Hague Conference on Private International Law. It was concluded in 2019, and entered into force on 1 September 2023 for the European Union and Ukraine. The convention governs the recognition of judgements in civil and commercial matters.

References

  1. 1 2 "Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (consolidated)". Council of the European Union . Retrieved 21 September 2022.
  2. ↑ "Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters". Council of the European Union . Retrieved 6 November 2014.
  3. ↑ Advisory opinion of the ECJ on the competence of the Community to conclude the new Lugano Convention (Opinion 1/03, para. 15.)
  4. ↑ "Convention concernant la compétence judiciaire et l'exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale" (PDF). Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland . Retrieved 10 November 2014.
  5. ↑ "Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters". Council of the European Union . Retrieved 10 November 2014.
  6. ↑ European Commission web site, Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters - Acquis JHA 2003 (Justice and Home Affairs). Consolidated version. Archived 22 August 2006 at the Wayback Machine Retrieved on 28 August 2006.
  7. ↑ "Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters". Council of the European Union . Retrieved 8 November 2014.
  8. ↑ Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 299, 16.11.2005, p. 62).
  9. ↑ Denmark signed separately as a result of its opt-out from the judicial cooperation provisions of the EU treaties.
  10. ↑ "Convention concernant la compétence judiciaire, la reconnaissance et l'exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale" (PDF). Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland . Retrieved 10 November 2014.
  11. ↑ "Convention concernant la compétence judiciaire, la reconnaissance et l'exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale" (PDF). Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland . Retrieved 21 May 2018.
  12. ↑ "Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters". Council of the European Union . Retrieved 10 November 2014.
  13. ↑ europa.eu Strengthening cooperation with Switzerland, Norway and Iceland: the Lugano Convention 2007.
  14. ↑ European Treaties Office Database, Lugano Convention Summary. Retrieved on 5 December 2012
  15. ↑ "Lijst I Verdragen die dit jaar naar verwachting ter parlementaire goedkeuring worden ingediend". Government of the Netherlands (in Dutch). 13 March 2014. Retrieved 13 March 2014.
  16. ↑ "Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations". Official Journal of the European Union . L (7): 1. 10 January 2009. Retrieved 28 December 2018.
  17. ↑ "Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters". Official Journal of the European Union . L (149): 80. 12 June 2009.
  18. ↑ See the second paragraph of Article 81 Regulation (EU) no. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1
  19. ↑ "Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters". Official Journal of the European Union . L (79): 4. 21 March 2013.
  20. 1 2 "Lugano Convention 2007". Government of Switzerland. Retrieved 20 February 2015.
  21. ↑ "Regulation (EU) No 542/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 as regards the rules to be applied with respect to the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court of Justice". Official Journal of the European Union . L (163): 1. 29 May 2014. Retrieved 5 January 2019.
  22. ↑ "European Commission proposal to pave way for unitary patent backed by Ministers". European Commission. 6 December 2013. Retrieved 19 December 2013.
  23. ↑ "Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters". Official Journal of the European Union . L (240): 1. 13 August 2014. Retrieved 8 November 2014.
  24. ↑ "The implications of Brexit for the justice system: Government Response to the Committee's Ninth Report of Session 2016–17" (PDF). House of Commons Justice Committee. 13 December 2017. Retrieved 1 January 2018.
  25. ↑ "Support for the UK's intent to accede to the Lugano Convention 200". Government of the UK. 28 January 2020. Retrieved 23 February 2020.
  26. ↑ "COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL: Assessment on the application of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to accede to the 2007 Lugano Convention". 4 May 2021. Retrieved 11 June 2021.
  27. ↑ "[2022] EWCA Civ 1569. Case No: CA-2022-000219". BAILII . Retrieved 30 November 2022.
  28. ↑ Both Ireland and the United Kingdom–the only common law countries to sign the Brussels Convention–enacted national laws which define the term "domicile" in terms of residence rather than the common law concept of domicile. In Ireland, the Fifth Schedule of the Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments (European Communities) Act 1988 and in the UK, Part V of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
Instruments
Case law
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.