Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

System and Scope

  • 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))

  • 491 Accesses

Abstract

The Brussels I Recast and the Rome I Regulations show certain systematic commonalities, such as the idea of proximity to the dispute or legal relationship or that they set out a rule-exception relation between general and special rules. Leaving this aside, there are many infrastructure differences. The Brussels I Recast Regulation is driven by the goal of providing access to the courts of the EU Member State where the defendant is domiciled. Compensation for this jurisdictional preference is provided by special grounds for jurisdiction that focus on the subject-matter in dispute. The Rome I Regulation, by contrast, cannot be concerned with such jurisdictional thoughts. Its general rules do not generally protect one party to the contract and its formula gives a strong priority to party autonomy. There is thus no parallel feature to ‘general jurisdiction’ in conflict of laws, as a default rule would thwart its idea of qualification. In turn, the tertium non est datur logic of Rome I and II has no equivalent in the Brussels I Regulation, which internally draws the demarcation line between contractual and non-contractual obligations.

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.

    Article 4(3).

  2. 2.

    Article 4(4).

  3. 3.

    Case 9/87 SPRL Arcado v SA Haviland [1988] ECR 1539 [15]; Case C-189/87, Athanasios Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schröder [1988] ECR 5565, [16]; Case 89/91 Shearson Lehmann Hutton Inc.

  4. 4.

    Report on the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters by Mr P. Jenard [1979] C 59/1, 41.

  5. 5.

    Study JLS/C4/2005/03, 174.

  6. 6.

    Case C-412/98 Group Josi Reinsurance Company SA v Universal General Insurance Company (UGIC) [2000] ECR I-5925; Case C‑417/15 Schmidt v Schmidt [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:881.

  7. 7.

    Case C-8/98 Dansommer A/S v Götz [2000] ECR I-393 [21]; Case 73/77 Sanders v Van der Putte [1977] ECR 2383 [17-18]; Case C-115/88 Reichert and Kockler [1990] ECR I-27 [9]; Case C-292/93 Lieber [1994] ECR I-2535 [12]; C-372/07 Hasset v The Medical Defence Union [2008] ECR I-7403 [18]; Case C-605/14 Komu and others ECLI:EU:C:2015:833.

  8. 8.

    Recital 16.

  9. 9.

    Case C-189/87, Athanasios Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schröder [1988] ECR 5565 [18].

  10. 10.

    It must be noted that the application of the recognition and enforcement provisions does not depend on the domicile of the defendant. Their scope requires the judgment to be rendered by a court or tribunal within the EU. Hence, a judgment given by a national court within the EU against a defendant domiciled outside of the EU can be enforced under the Regulation, even where the jurisdiction is based on national ‘exorbitant’ grounds for jurisdictions, see Vlas 2007, Article 4, para 76.

  11. 11.

    Where the defendant enters an appearance under Article 26.

  12. 12.

    Stone 2010, p. 339.

  13. 13.

    Crawford and Carruthers 2014, p. 2.

  14. 14.

    On the term ‘civil and commercial matters’, see Illmer 2015, p. 61; Case 266/01, TIARD SA v. Staat der Nederlanden [2003] ECR I-4867 [28]; Case 814/79, Netherlands State v. Reinhold Rüffer [1980] ECR 3807; Case 29/76, LTU Lufttransportunternehmen GmbH & Co. KG v. Eurocontrol [1976] ECR 1517.

  15. 15.

    For an analysis of the excluded matters, see Plender and Wilderspin 2009, pp. 101–129.

  16. 16.

    Proposal for a Regulation of The European Parliament and the Council on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (“Rome II”) COM(2003) 427 final; Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) COM(2005) 650 final.

  17. 17.

    Freitag 2010, pp. 169–176. For a view on the dividing line between Rome I and Rome II Regulation, see Plender and Wilderspin 2009, p. 47.

  18. 18.

    Briggs 2014, p. 65, para 2.65.

  19. 19.

    Case C-533/07 Falco Privatstiftung v Weller-Lindhorst [2009] ECR I-3327 [34-38]; see also Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak delivered on 27 January 2009 to Case C-533/07, para 73: ‘It must be considered that the legal concepts relevant to a particular branch of law are always stated strictly in relation to the field involved, so that a definition valid for one sector cannot be transposed directly to another’.

  20. 20.

    Case 32/88 Société Six Constructions/Humbert [1989] ECR I-341 [20].

  21. 21.

    Case C-45/13 EU:C:2014:7; discussed in ecolex 2014, p. 334 (Schmon).

  22. 22.

    Paragraph 23.

  23. 23.

    Paragraph 27.

  24. 24.

    Report on the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters by Mr P. Jenard [1979] C 59/1, 18.

  25. 25.

    Certainly, the defendant might, in individual cases, prefer a forum that is not located in the State of his domicile. Article 4 of the Recast Regulation therefore protects the typical interest of the defendant. For general comments on this principle, see Pfeiffer 1995, pp. 599–603.

  26. 26.

    Von Mehren 2002, p. 181; Schack 2002, p. 89. For an overview of viewpoints, see Buchner 1998, pp. 16–18.

  27. 27.

    Case C-386/05, Color Drack GmbH v Lexx International Vertriebs GmbH [2007] I-03,699 [22]; Case C-204/08 Rehder ECR [2009] I-6073.

  28. 28.

    Buchner 1998, p. 5.

  29. 29.

    See opinion of General Advocate Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, 14 March 2006, Case C-103/05 Reisch Montage AG v Kiesel Baumaschinen Handels GmbH [2006] ECR I-06,827, para 21; see also Pfeiffer 1995, p. 502.

  30. 30.

    Case C-189/87 Athanasios Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schröder [1988] ECR 5565 [8-9].

  31. 31.

    Case C-220/84 AS-Autoteile Service GmbH v Malhé [1985] ECR I-2267 [15].

  32. 32.

    For the justice model of the United States, see Buchner 1998, pp. 24–42.

  33. 33.

    Case C-12/76 Tessili v Dunlop AG [1976] ECR 1473 [14].

  34. 34.

    See Mankowski 2007, p. 200 (and references there); Pfeiffer 1995, p. 679 (law on jurisdiction serves particular procedural purposes, which demand an autonomous interpretation of legal terms). See, however, Geimer 1983, § 83 II 2 (arguing that the debtor should answer before the courts of the state where he fulfils his obligations).

  35. 35.

    Mankowski 2007, p. 160.

  36. 36.

    Basedow 2001, p. 593; Pfeiffer 1995, pp. 677–679.

  37. 37.

    See also the supporting opinions of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer (C-440/97) and Advocate General Léger (C-420/97).

  38. 38.

    Case C-548/12, Marc Brogsitter v Fabrication de Montres Normandes EURL, Karsten Fräßdorf, ECLI:EU:C:2014:148.

  39. 39.

    Case C-196/15, Granarolo SpA v Ambrosi Emmi France SA [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:559 [25].

  40. 40.

    For example, C-27/02, Engler v Janus Versand GmbH, 2005 I-481, ECLI:EU:C:2005:33 [48] (‘it follows from the foregoing that, as the Advocate General pointed out in point 38 of his Opinion, the concept of ‘matters relating to contract’ referred to in Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention is not interpreted narrowly by the Court’).

  41. 41.

    Joint Cases C‑359/14 and C‑475/14 [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:40 [44] (‘By analogy, and in accordance with the aim of consistency’ […]).

  42. 42.

    Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, delivered on 31 January 2019 to Case C-25/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:86 [60] (referring to questions governed by the law of companies).

  43. 43.

    Schwartze 2015, p. 66 (exceptions not necessarily to be interpreted strictly); Kramer 2010, p. 206 (arguing that a legislative focus on a rule-exception relation does not in the least mean that the lex singularis will continue to be an exception in the practical application of law, e.g., the exception could ‘eat up the rule’; evaluative arguments must be the focus).

  44. 44.

    See opinion of GA Jacaobs, 13 December 2001 to C-96/00 Gabriel [2002] ECR I-6367, 46.

  45. 45.

    Bydlinski 1991, p. 440; Larenz 1991, p. 355.

  46. 46.

    Recital 23 of Rome I; Recital 18 of Brussels I.

  47. 47.

    Case C-167/00 Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Henkel [2002] I-8111.

  48. 48.

    Case C-191/15 [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:612.

  49. 49.

    Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard delivered on 2 June 2016 to Case C-191/15, para 54.

  50. 50.

    Case C-191/15, n.48 [53].

  51. 51.

    For a dogmatic discussion, see Micklitz and Reich (2015) p. 181.

References

  • Basedow J (2001) Die Auslegung von EG-Verordnungen. In: Basedow J et al. (eds) Aufbruch nach Europa: 75 Jahre Max-Planck-Institut für Privatrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 583–594

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchner B (1998) Kläger- und Beklagtenschutz im Recht der internationalen Zuständigkeit: Lösungsansätze für eine zukünftige Gerichtsstands- und Vollstreckungskonvention. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Bydlinski F (1991) Methodenlehre. Springer, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford EB, Carruthers JM (2014) Connection and Coherence between and among European Instruments in the Private International Law of Obligations. ICLQ 64:1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Freitag R (2010) Rom I, Rom II – tertium est datur im Kollisionsrecht der Schuldverhältnisse – Anmerkungen zum sachlichen Anwendungsbereich der Verordnungen Rom I und Rom I. In: Bernreuther J et al (eds) Festschrift für Ulrich Spellenberg zum 70. Geburtstag. Sellier, Munich, pp 169–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Geimer R (1983) Band I/1. In: Geimer R, Schütze RA (eds) Internationale Urteilsanerkennung. Beck, Munich, § 83 II 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Illmer M (2015) Scope and Definitions. In: Dickinson A, Lein E (eds) The Brussels I Regulation Recast. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 55–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer EA (2010) Juristische Methodenlehre. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Larenz K (1991) Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Mankowski P (2007) Art 5. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Brussels I Regulation: European Commentaries on Private International Law. Sellier, European Law Publishers, Germany, pp 77–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Micklitz H, Reich N (2015) Das IPR der Verbraucherverbandsklage gegen missbräuchliche AGB. EWS 4:181–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer T (1995) Internationale Zuständigkeit und prozessuale Gerechtigkeit: Die internationale Zuständigkeit im Zivilprozess zwischen effektivem Rechtsschutz und nationaler Zuständigkeitspolitik. Klostermann, Frankfurt/Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Plender R, Wilderspin M (2009) The European Private International Law of Obligations, 3rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Schack H (2002) Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht, 3rd edn. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartze A (2015) Die Rechtsvergleichung. In: Riesenhuber K (ed) Europäische Methodenlehre: Handbuch für Ausbildung und Praxis, 3rd edn. Beck, Berlin, pp 53–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone P (2010) EU Private International Law, 2nd edn. Elgar European Law, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlas P (2007) Arts 2-4. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Brussels I Regulation: European Commentaries on Private International Law. Sellier European Law Publishers, Munich, pp 69–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Mehren AT (2002) Theory and Practice of Adjudicatory Authority in Private International Law: General Course of Private International Law. 295 Recueil Des Cours, pp 9–34

    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). System and Scope. 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_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-367-2_3

  • 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