Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reference Matrix of EU Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Interconnection of the EU Regulations Brussels I Recast and Rome I

Part of the book series: Short Studies in Private International Law ((SSIL))

  • 465 Accesses

Abstract

The amalgamation of private international law and EU law has led to a firm systematic interconnection between the Brussels I Recast and Rome I Regulations. As law of the European Union, EU private international law follows, and must respect, the genuine principles and objectives of Union law. Both Regulations serve European integration and the implementation of the four freedoms. From an internal market perspective, the creation of an underpinning framework of coordinated rules on international jurisdiction, mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments, and harmonisation of laws and standards was inevitable. The Court of Justice is also a vehicle of EU integration and has helped to make early private international law a success. The Court has shown dedication to the Treaties and exercises an interpretation detached from national legal concepts. The aspiration for uniform, autonomous interpretation suggests a systematic approach of interpretation of the Brussels I Recast and the Rome I Regulations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    [Integrationspolitisches Subkonzept zur Verwirklichung des binnenmarktlichen Raums ohne Binnenmarktgrenzkontrollen]. Müller-Graff 2005, p. 16.

  2. 2.

    Cf. Study JLS/C4/2005/03 Report on the Application of Regulation Brussels I in the Member States by Hess and others (2007), 38.

  3. 3.

    Case C-212/97 Centros [ECR] 1999 I-1459; Case C-208/00 Überseering [2002] ECR I-9919.

  4. 4.

    Case C-381/98 [2000] ECR I-9305.

  5. 5.

    TFEU Article 67(1) (‘The Union shall constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States’).

  6. 6.

    Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2000] OJ C 364/1.

  7. 7.

    Reservations to the Charter were made by the British and the Polish governments.

  8. 8.

    Wolf 1992, p. 35.

  9. 9.

    Recital 3 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation and Recital 1 of the Rome I Regulation.

  10. 10.

    Recital 4 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation and Recital 6 of the Rome I Regulation.

  11. 11.

    EC Treaty Article 3(c).

  12. 12.

    Muir-Watt 2010, p. 49 (stating that, in contrast to the system of the United States, EU conflict of laws rules offer a means to avoid substantive unification).

  13. 13.

    Kuipers 2012, p. 34.

  14. 14.

    A procedure corresponding to this ‘proposal’ was established with the entry into force of Regulation 662/2009 on 13 July ([2009] OJ L 200/25). It authorises a Member State to amend an existing agreement or to negotiate and conclude a new agreement with a third country on particular matters concerning the law applicable to contractual and non-contractual obligations.

  15. 15.

    After the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, the UK will lose the ex-ante and ex post opt-in possibilities under Title V of the TFEU. The Rome Regulations as well as the Brussels I Regulation will no longer apply.

  16. 16.

    Protocol Concerning the Interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, June 3, 1971 [1975] OJ L 204/28.

  17. 17.

    Geimer 2002, p. 33; cf. Kerameus 2002, p. 12 (noting that one reason why the Hague conventions have not reached a greater expansion is the lack of central authoritative interpretation).

  18. 18.

    Curting and Dekker 2002, pp. 63–64.

  19. 19.

    Case 2/99 Zwartveld [1990] ECR I-3365.

  20. 20.

    See Magnus and Mankowski 2007, p. 37.

  21. 21.

    Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 [1991] ECR I-5357.

  22. 22.

    Case C-185/07 Allianz SpA v West Tankers Inc [2009] ECR I-663. For arbitral injunctions and the relationship to the Brussels I Recast Regulation, see Regulation, Schmon 2015, 669.

  23. 23.

    This provision allows effect to be given ‘to the overriding mandatory provisions of the law of the country where the obligations arising out of the contract have to be or have been performed, in so far as those overriding mandatory provisions render the performance of the contract unlawful’.

  24. 24.

    Lang 1999, p. 677; Sonnenberger 2006, p. 116 (stating that, insofar as there is a community duty, ‘may must be read as must’).

  25. 25.

    Dickinson and Lein 2015, p. 25, para 1.68 (considering the principle of mutual trust as but one facet of the principle of sincere cooperation).

  26. 26.

    Commission’s Communication, The EU Justice Agenda for 2020—Strengthening Trust, Mobility and Growth within the Union, COM(2014)144 final.

  27. 27.

    Conclusions of the Presidency of the European Council [1999] 10 Bulletin of the European Union.

  28. 28.

    Draft Programme of Measures for Implementation of the Principle of Mutual Recognition of Decisions in Civil and Commercial Matters [2001] OJ C 12/1 (Mutual Recognition Programme).

  29. 29.

    Mansel 2006, p. 651. On the principle of mutual recognition in private international law, see Rieks 2012; see also the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on ‘Mutual Recognition of Final Decisions in Criminal Matters COM(2000) 495 final, according to which mutual trust would be ‘an important element, not only trust in the adequacy of one’s partners’ rules, but also trust that these rules are correctly applied’.

  30. 30.

    Joint Cases C-187/01 and C-385/01 Gözütok and Brügge [2003] ECR I-1345.

  31. 31.

    Case C-159/02 Turner v Grovit et al. [2004] ECR I- 3565 [24].

  32. 32.

    Case C-351/89 Overseas Union Insurance Ltd [1991] ECR I-3317.

  33. 33.

    Oberhammer 2010, p. 72 (speaking of ‘integration dogmatism’).

  34. 34.

    Thöne 2015, p. 149; Frauenberger-Pfeiler 2014, p. 24.

  35. 35.

    Case C-321/02 [2004] ECR I-7101, para 28. For a general view, see Riesenhuber 2015, p. 201.

  36. 36.

    For example, Case C-360/12, Coty Germany GmbH v First Note Perfumes NV [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:1318 [43]; Case C-228/11 Melzer EU:C:2013:305 [22]; Case C-189/08, Zuid-Chemie BV [2009] ECLI:EU:C:2009:475 [17]; see with respect to the Rome II Regulation Case C-189/87 [1998] ECR 5565, Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schröder [15-16].

  37. 37.

    Case 150/77, Bertrand v Paul Ott KG [1978] ECR I-1431 [15-16].

  38. 38.

    Case C-89/91 Shearson Lehmann Hutton Inc. v. TVB Treuhandgesellschaft für Vermögensverwaltung und Beteiligungen mbH [1993] ECR I-139 [13].

  39. 39.

    For example, the last sentence of Article 24(2) Brussels I Recast Regulation: […] In order to determine that seat, the court shall apply its rules of private international law; see also Recital 27 of the Rome II Regulation: “The exact concept of industrial action, such as strike action or lock-out, varies from one Member State to another and is governed by each Member State’s internal rules”.

  40. 40.

    Case C-443/03 Leffler v Berlin Chemie AG [2005] I-9611 [43-45].

  41. 41.

    Hess 2006, p. 358.

  42. 42.

    Case C-14/61 Hoogovens v High Authority [1962] ECR 485, Opinion of Advocate-General Lagrange, 283–284. It should be noted, however, that the significance of comparative law is beyond doubt. The comparative method is of utmost importance for both the development and the application of private international law. Both disciplines deal with foreign law and have, inter alia, international collaboration in matters of private justice in mind. Proof of their interaction can be found on academic, legislative, and judicial levels. Comparative law supplements private international law, and the latter may sometimes even depend on the first, see von Bar 1987, p. 6; for a general view, see id., pp. 92–98. Nevertheless, due to the rise of a new ius commune, the importance and use of the comparative method largely differs according to the subject matter. The higher the degree of uniformity in private law (often accomplished with the comparative method), the more private international law will become somewhat ‘superfluous’, see Reimann 2012, p. 17. For the challenges of comparative law with respect to the unification of private law in the European Union, see Zimmermann 2006. For a general introduction into the studies of comparative law, see, e.g., Gutteridge 1971. For the question of whether the comparative method can contribute to the development of (public) Union law, see Legrand 2002, p. 225 (thoughtfully explaining the challenges and criticism of comparative law and pointing out the necessity to ‘move away from hubristic programmes engendering a frenetic and hasty search for commonalities which-clearly-must-be-there-since-we-want-them-there’ and claiming that ‘meaningful comparative work demand […] individuals who accept that […] [an] understanding of law or of an experience of law other than one’s own can only arise from thorough cultural contextualisation’). For the importance, deduction, and application of general principles in European private law, see Metzger 2009.

  43. 43.

    Case 29-76 LTU Lufttransportunternehmen GmbH & Co. KG v Eurocontrol [3].

  44. 44.

    Case 12/76 Industrie Tessili Italiana Como v Dunlop AG [1976] ECR 1473 [9].

  45. 45.

    Cases 205-215/82 Deutsche MilchKontor GmbH v Germany [1983] ECR 2633.

  46. 46.

    Case 70/83 Kloppenburg v Finanzamt Leer [1984] ECR 01075 [11].

  47. 47.

    Briggs 2014, p. 55, para 2.46; Case 169/80 Gonrdrand, [1981] ECR 1931.

  48. 48.

    Council Regulation No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation [2010] L 343/10.

References

  • Briggs A (2014) Private International Law in English Courts. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Curting D, Dekker I (2002) The Constitutional Structure of the European Union: Some Reflections on Vertical Unity-in-Diversity. In: Beaumont B, Lyons C, Walker N (eds) Convergence and Divergence in European Public Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 59–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson A, Lein E (2015) The Brussels I Regulation Recast. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Frauenberger-Pfeiler U (2014) EuGVVO “2.0” in Kraft - Änderungen bei Anerkennung und Vollstreckung. JAP 24:240–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Geimer R (2002) The Brussels Convention - Successful Model and Old-Timer. EJLR 4:19–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutteridge HC (1971) Comparative law: An Introduction to the Comparative Method of Legal Studies, Comparative law and the Conflict of Laws. Cambridge University Press Archive, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess B (2006) Methoden der Rechtsfindung im Europäischen Zivilprozessrecht. IPRax 348-363

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerameus KD (2002) Angleichung des Zivilprozeßrechts in Europa: Einige Grundlegende Aspekte. RabelsZ 66:17

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuipers JJ (2012) EU Law and Private International Law: The Interrelationship in Contractual Obligations. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang JT (1999) Community Constitutional Law: Article 5 EEC Treaty. CMLRev 27:645–681

    Google Scholar 

  • Legrand P (2002) Public Law, Europeanisation, and Convergence: Can Comparatists Contribute? In: Beaumont P and others (eds) Convergence and Divergence in European Public Law. Hart Publishing, Oxford-Portland Oregon, pp 225–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnus U, Mankowski P (2007) Brussels I Regulation: European Commentaries on Private International Law. Sellier European Law Publishers, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansel HP (2006) Anerkennung als Grundprinzip des europäischen Rechtsraums. RabelsZ 70:651–731

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzger A (2009) Extra legem - intra ius: Allgemeine Rechtsgrundsätze im Europäischen Privatrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Muir-Watt H (2010) The role of conflict of laws in European private law. In: Twigg-Flesner C (ed) European Union Private Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 44–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Graff PC (2005) Der Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P (2010) Freier Urteilsverkehr durch Abschaffung des Vollstreckbarerklärungsverfahrens und der Anerkennungsversagungsgründe. In: Fucik, Konecny and others (eds) Jahrbuch Zivilverfahrensrecht. Manz, Vienna, pp 69–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimann M (2012) Comparative Law and Neighbouring Disciplines. In: Bussani M, Mattei U (eds) The Cambridge Companion to Comparative Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 13–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieks J (2012) Anerkennung im Internationalen Privatrecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Riesenhuber K (2015) Europäische Methodenlehre: Handbuch für Ausbildung und Praxis, 3rd edn. Beck, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmon C (2015) EuGVVO auf Frage der Anerkennung einer anti-suit injunction durch ein Schiedsgericht nicht anwendbar. ecolex 669

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonnenberger HJ (2006) Internationales Privatrecht, Einl. IPR. In: Sonnenberger HJ (ed) Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, 4th edn. 10 Internationales Privatrecht, C.H. Beck, Munich, pp 5–365

    Google Scholar 

  • Thöne M (2015) Der Abschied vom Exequatur. GPR 149-154

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bar C (1987) Internationales Privatrecht, I Allgemeine Lehren. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf M (1992) Abbau prozessualer Schranken im europäischen Binnenmarkt. In: Grunsky W and others (eds) Wege zu einem europäischen Zivilprozessrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 35–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann R (2006) Comparative Law and the Europeanization of Private Law. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 539–577

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nottingham, UK

    Dr. Christoph Schmon

Authors
  1. Dr. Christoph Schmon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schmon, C. (2020). Reference Matrix of EU Law. In: The Interconnection of the EU Regulations Brussels I Recast and Rome I. Short Studies in Private International Law . T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-367-2_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-367-2_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-366-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-367-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation