Advertisement

Reference Matrix of EU Law

  • Christoph Schmon
Chapter
  • 18 Downloads
Part of the Short Studies in Private International Law book series (SSIL)

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.

Keywords

EU Private International Law Harmonisation Functional Integration Internal Market Governance Court of Justice Autonomous Interpretation Legal Certainty Four Freedoms 

References

  1. Briggs A (2014) Private International Law in English Courts. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 59–78Google Scholar
  3. Dickinson A, Lein E (2015) The Brussels I Regulation Recast. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Frauenberger-Pfeiler U (2014) EuGVVO “2.0” in Kraft - Änderungen bei Anerkennung und Vollstreckung. JAP 24:240–243Google Scholar
  5. Geimer R (2002) The Brussels Convention - Successful Model and Old-Timer. EJLR 4:19–37Google Scholar
  6. 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, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Hess B (2006) Methoden der Rechtsfindung im Europäischen Zivilprozessrecht. IPRax 348-363Google Scholar
  8. Kerameus KD (2002) Angleichung des Zivilprozeßrechts in Europa: Einige Grundlegende Aspekte. RabelsZ 66:17Google Scholar
  9. Kuipers JJ (2012) EU Law and Private International Law: The Interrelationship in Contractual Obligations. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  10. Lang JT (1999) Community Constitutional Law: Article 5 EEC Treaty. CMLRev 27:645–681Google Scholar
  11. 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 225–256Google Scholar
  12. Magnus U, Mankowski P (2007) Brussels I Regulation: European Commentaries on Private International Law. Sellier European Law Publishers, MunichGoogle Scholar
  13. Mansel HP (2006) Anerkennung als Grundprinzip des europäischen Rechtsraums. RabelsZ 70:651–731Google Scholar
  14. Metzger A (2009) Extra legem - intra ius: Allgemeine Rechtsgrundsätze im Europäischen Privatrecht. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 44–57Google Scholar
  16. Müller-Graff PC (2005) Der Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  17. Oberhammer P (2010) Freier Urteilsverkehr durch Abschaffung des Vollstreckbarerklärungsverfahrens und der Anerkennungsversagungsgründe. In: Fucik, Konecny and others (eds) Jahrbuch Zivilverfahrensrecht. Manz, Vienna, pp 69–78Google Scholar
  18. 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 13–34Google Scholar
  19. Rieks J (2012) Anerkennung im Internationalen Privatrecht. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  20. Riesenhuber K (2015) Europäische Methodenlehre: Handbuch für Ausbildung und Praxis, 3rd edn. Beck, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  21. Schmon C (2015) EuGVVO auf Frage der Anerkennung einer anti-suit injunction durch ein Schiedsgericht nicht anwendbar. ecolex 669Google Scholar
  22. 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 5–365Google Scholar
  23. Thöne M (2015) Der Abschied vom Exequatur. GPR 149-154Google Scholar
  24. Von Bar C (1987) Internationales Privatrecht, I Allgemeine Lehren. Beck, MunichGoogle Scholar
  25. Wolf M (1992) Abbau prozessualer Schranken im europäischen Binnenmarkt. In: Grunsky W and others (eds) Wege zu einem europäischen Zivilprozessrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 35–69Google Scholar
  26. 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 539–577Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Schmon
    • 1
  1. 1.NottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations