Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on Private International Law pp 85–147Cite as

Jurisdiction in Private International Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1830 Accesses

Abstract

The impact of the ECHR on jurisdiction in private international law is examined in this chapter. It is demonstrated that the impact of the ECHR is limited to Article 6(1) ECHR. This right may be invoked by both plaintiffs and defendants in international civil proceedings. Plaintiffs may rely on the right to access to a court, which has been derived by the Court from Article 6(1) ECHR. The right of access to a court not only plays a role in international proceedings in the event of negative jurisdiction—where there is no court available—but, under certain circumstances, a plaintiff might also rely on this right where there is more than one court available. Defendants in international proceedings can also rely on Article 6(1) ECHR. Article 6(1) ECHR may be invoked against the assertion of jurisdiction, where jurisdiction is based on exorbitant or inappropriate grounds. It has been argued that the Court’s interpretation of the right to a fair trial would appear to allow for a due process-like role with regard to the defendant’s right to a fair trial. Finally, Article 6(1) ECHR may additionally have a role with regard to strategic litigation. In international civil proceedings, it is perfectly normal for litigants who have a choice between different competent courts to choose the one most favorable to their cause. However, such strategic litigation might lead to abuse. This chapter examines whether Article 6(1) ECHR can function as a brake on strategic litigation where this becomes abusive.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See also supra Chap. 2.

  2. 2.

    Von Mehren 2002, p. 56.

  3. 3.

    Von Mehren 2007, p. 47.

  4. 4.

    See further infra Sect. 5.2.2.

  5. 5.

    See supra Chap. 4.

  6. 6.

    In some jurisdictions these two concepts are interwoven in the sense that the rules of venue also function as the rules of international jurisdiction.

  7. 7.

    See, e.g., Hartley 2006, p. 27. See with regard to the increased attention for conflicts of jurisdiction over conflicts of laws McLachlan 2004, pp. 580–616.

  8. 8.

    See with regard to the sources of private international law generally supra Chap. 2.

  9. 9.

    An example would be the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements, which after long negotiations has finally been agreed upon, although it is yet to enter into force. See [www.hcch.net]. See further, e.g., Beaumont 2009, pp. 125–159.

  10. 10.

    Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, OJ 2001, L12/1. (Brussels I-Regulation). The Regulation replaces the 1968 Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, OJ 1978, L 304/36. The consolidated version can be found in OJ 1998, C 27/1.

  11. 11.

    Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 concerning Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and the Matters of Parental Responsibility, OJ 2003, L 338/1.

  12. 12.

    Council Decision 2007/712/EC on the Signing on behalf of the Community, of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, OJ 2007, L 339/1. The 2007 Lugano Convention replaces the 1988 Lugano Convention, OJ 1988, L 329/1.

  13. 13.

    See, e.g., Magnus and Mankowski 2012.

  14. 14.

    See in this regard infra Sect. 5.5.2, pp. 88.

  15. 15.

    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 2012, L 351/1. The Recast will apply from 10 January 2015 (see Article 81 of the Recast).

  16. 16.

    See, e.g., Fernández Arroyo 2004, p. 169. But see De Winter 1968, p. 717.

  17. 17.

    See Article 2 of the Brussels I Regulation supra n. 10.

  18. 18.

    See, e.g., Wautelet 2004, p. 67. One could in this regard also cite the Hague Convention supra n. 9.

  19. 19.

    Nadelmann 1961.

  20. 20.

    Fernández Arroyo 2004, p. 170.

  21. 21.

    De Winter 1968, p. 706. Cf. Kahn-Freund 1976, p. 34.

  22. 22.

    See Article 3(2) (and Annex I) of the Brussels I Regulation supra n. 10.

  23. 23.

    See Annex 1 to the Brussels I Regulation supra n. 10.

  24. 24.

    These restrictions, which may follow from Article 6(1) ECHR, will be discussed infra Sects. 5.4 and 5.5.

  25. 25.

    The limitations following immunities are well established, and will henceforth not be further discussed. See with regard to immunities in public international law, e.g., the recent case of the ICJ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), 3 February 2012. See with regard to this case, e.g., Hess 2012, pp. 201–206.

  26. 26.

    Akehurst 1972–1973, p. 170.

  27. 27.

    See Akehurst 1972–1973, p. 177. Cf. Shaw 2008, pp. 651–652.

  28. 28.

    Brownlie 2008, p. 300.

  29. 29.

    Mann 1984, p. 28. Cf. Mann 1964, pp. 44–47 and (on civil jurisdiction) p. 73ff. But see Matscher 1978, p. 157 (in reaction to Mann’s work of 1964).

  30. 30.

    See, e.g., Mann 1984; Meessen 1984, pp. 38–44.

  31. 31.

    Kessedjian 1997, p. 23.

  32. 32.

    Hill 2003, p. 43.

  33. 33.

    See PCIJ, 7 September 1927, Series A No. 10 (Lotus).

  34. 34.

    See, e.g., Higgins 1999, p. 100.

  35. 35.

    See supra Sect. 5.2.1.1.

  36. 36.

    Cf. Joubert 2007, pp. 23–27, who appears to acknowledge this and concludes that public international law has only a limited role with regard to private international law, but who also points out that the increased attention for the importance of significant links may call into question this limited role. See in this regard also De Vareilles-Sommières 1997.

  37. 37.

    See, e.g., the many interesting contributions on this subject in Olmstead 1984; see also Kamminga 2012, particularly no. 17ff; Oxman 2012, particularly no. 52ff.

  38. 38.

    See, e.g., Sinclair 1984, pp. 217–222; April 1984, pp. 223–233.

  39. 39.

    Cf. Mayer 1979, pp. 1–29, pp. 349–388, p. 552.

  40. 40.

    An example of a national court being attentive to the question of whether the judgment will be recognized abroad is Hof’s-Gravenhage, 21 December 2005. This case will be discussed in detail infra n. 181.

  41. 41.

    Von Mehren and Trautman 1966, p. 1127. See also Schlosser 2000.

  42. 42.

    See, e.g., De Visscher 1935, pp. 363–442.

  43. 43.

    See, e.g., Adede 1976, pp. 73–95; Focarelli 2012; Paulsson 2005. See also Francioni 2007. See with regard to the doctrine in private international law: Corbion 2004.

  44. 44.

    See, e.g., Kessedjian 2007, p. 22; Cf. Focarelli 2012, at no. 13.

  45. 45.

    The Court in Golder v. the United Kingdom also expressly referred to a ‘denial of justice’. See infra Sect. 5.4.1.

  46. 46.

    See infra Sect. 5.4.

  47. 47.

    See supra Chap. 4

  48. 48.

    See with regard to this issue also Guinchard 2005, p. 204ff.

  49. 49.

    See infra Sect. 5.4.1.

  50. 50.

    See further supra Chap. 4.

  51. 51.

    Marchadier 2007, p. 45ff.

  52. 52.

    Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, ECHR 2006-XIV.

  53. 53.

    Banković and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, ECHR 2001-XI.

  54. 54.

    See with regard to this case also supra Chap. 4.

  55. 55.

    Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, para 54, ECHR 2006-XIV.

  56. 56.

    It should, incidentally, be clear from the outset that the right of access to a court ex Article 6(1) ECHR, or any other right guaranteed in the ECHR, does not entail a ground of universal civil jurisdiction for bringing claims concerning violations of the ECHR. See also supra Chap. 1.

  57. 57.

    Gauthier v. Belgium (dec.), no. 12603/86, 6 March 1989.

  58. 58.

    Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18.

  59. 59.

    Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, para 35, Series A no. 18.

  60. 60.

    Id.

  61. 61.

    It should be noted that the determination of ‘civil rights and obligations’ is not confined to relationships between private persons. In König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, paras 89–90, Series A no. 27, the Court held that in establishing whether a dispute concerns the determination of a civil right the character of the right was all that mattered. In H. v. France, 24 October 1989, Series A no. 162-A, the Court held that if the outcome of the case is conclusive for private law rights and obligations, then Article 6(1) ECHR applies.

  62. 62.

    See, e.g., Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13.

  63. 63.

    See, e.g., Edificaciones March Gallego S.A. v. Spain, 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments

    and Decisions 1998-I.

  64. 64.

    See, e.g., Axen v. Germany, 8 December 1983, Series A no. 72.

  65. 65.

    See, e.g., Rasmussen v. Denmark, 28 November 1984, Series A no. 87. This also includes family law issues, which have a public law character in the sense that the authorities are involved in, e.g., parental access to children, adoption, and fostering. See respectively P., C. and S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 56547/00, ECHR 2002-VI; Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290; Eriksson v. Sweden, 22 June 1989, Series A no. 156.

  66. 66.

    See, e.g., Buchholz v. Germany, 6 May 1981, Series A no. 42.

  67. 67.

    See, e.g., James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, para 81, Series A no. 98 and Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1990, para 36, Series A no. 172.

  68. 68.

    Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, para 65, Series A no. 294-B.

  69. 69.

    See, e.g., Airey v. Ireland. 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32; Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002-II; and Multiplex v. Croatia, no. 58112/00, 10 July 2003.

  70. 70.

    See, e.g., Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002-II and Multiplex v. Croatia, no. 58112/00, 10 July 2003. However, the extent of the right in international proceedings would appear to be more limited. See infra Sect. 5.4.3ff.

  71. 71.

    De Geouffre de la Pradelle v. France, 16 December 1992, para 33–34, Series A no. 253-B.

  72. 72.

    Airey v. Ireland. 9 October 1979, para 26, Series A no. 32.

  73. 73.

    Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, para 61, ECHR 2005-II. This case concerned two environmentalists who were sued for libel by McDonalds. As they defended their right to freedom of expression and had been sued for a huge sum of money, and the case itself was also quite complex, the Court found that Article 6(1) ECHR applied.

  74. 74.

    See with regard to the latter, e.g., McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, ECHR 2002-III, in which the applicant was deemed to be able to do without legal representation as a defendant in libel proceedings.

  75. 75.

    Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, para 38, Series A no. 18.

  76. 76.

    See with regard to this notion supra Sect. 3.5.2.

  77. 77.

    See, e.g., Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, para 59, Series A no. 93.

  78. 78.

    See supra n. 69.

  79. 79.

    See e,g, Tinnelly & Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v. the United Kingdom, 10 July 1998, para 72, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV. See for an overview of the Court’s case law in this regard also Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, para 68–83, Series A no. 294-B.

  80. 80.

    See the Concurring Opinion of Judge Martens in De Geouffre de la Pradelle v. France, 16 December 1992, Series A no. 253-B, in which he argued that the test should be similar. In Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B, para 67, the Court indeed appears to tie these conditions concerning Article 6(1) ECHR to the restrictions it had formulated in Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, para 41 regarding Article 8(2) ECHR. See with regard to the restrictions contained in Articles 8–11(2) also supra Sect. 3.5.1.2.

  81. 81.

    Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, para 61, Series A no. 316-B. It is interesting to note that the good—or sound—administration of justice is one of the principles underlying the system of jurisdiction of the Brussels I Regulation. See Pontier and Burg 2004, pp. 160–162.

  82. 82.

    Brualla Gómez de la Torre v. Spain, 19 December 1997, para 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII.

  83. 83.

    See, e.g., Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, para 54, ECHR 2001-XI. It will be recalled that immunities are not covered in this research. See supra Chap. 1.

  84. 84.

    Kart v. Turkey [GC], no. 8917/05, para 79, ECHR 2009 (extracts).

  85. 85.

    See Aït-Mouhoub v. France, 28 October 1998, para 57-61, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII. Cf. X v. Sweden (dec.), no. 7973, 28 February 1979, in which the Commission examined the complaint of a Pakistani citizen who ran a carpet business and resided at the time of lodging the application in Sweden. The applicant instituted court proceedings against his bank in Sweden. The defendant bank requested the applicant to provide security for costs on the basis of the relevant Swedish law, which provided at the time that any alien, regardless of whether he lived in Sweden, could be asked to furnish security. The applicant declared himself unable to do so, which normally would have resulted in a rejection of the action. However, the bank withdrew its request and the parties reached an agreement. The applicant’s complaint against the relevant Swedish law in abstracto was thereafter dismissed by the Commission. See also Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, para 61, Series A no. 316-B.

  86. 86.

    See Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, paras 61–67, ECHR 2001-VI.

  87. 87.

    See Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, para 75, Series A no. 33.

  88. 88.

    Canea Catholic Church v. Greece, 16 December 1997, Reports of Judgments and

    Decisions 1997-VIII.

  89. 89.

    Gauthier v. Belgium (dec.), no. 12603/86, 6 March 1989.

  90. 90.

    Of course, this would in most jurisdictions presumably be a condition for the validity of the jurisdiction clause—or any agreement for that matter.

  91. 91.

    See, e.g., Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria, 25 February 1992, Series A no. 227.

  92. 92.

    See infra Sect. 5.4.3.

  93. 93.

    See also infra n. 132.

  94. 94.

    X. v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 8407/78, 6 May 1980, D.R. 179.

  95. 95.

    See supra Sect. 5.4.1.

  96. 96.

    See with regard to the notion of ‘manifestly ill-founded’ supra Sect. 3.2.

  97. 97.

    See, e.g., Ammdjadi v. Germany discussed in ch. 6.3; and McDonald v. France discussed in Sect. 7.2.

  98. 98.

    See, e.g., Briggs and Rees 2009, pp. 19–20; Corbion 2004, p. 189ff; Gaudemet-Tallon 2006, pp. 173–189; Guinchard 2005, p. 200, p. 206ff; Kinsch 2007, p. 43ff; Marchadier 2007, p. 43ff, particularly at p. 66ff; Matscher1993a, b, pp. 79–80; Matscher 1998, p. 218.

  99. 99.

    See infra Sect. 5.5.

  100. 100.

    See supra n. 57.

  101. 101.

    Matscher 1998, p. 218. But see Marchadier 2007, p. 84ff. See also Corbion 2004, p. 189ff.

  102. 102.

    See Corbion 2004, p. 202ff and the authors cited there.

  103. 103.

    See, e.g., Gaudemet-Tallon 2006, p. 174. Cf. Bucher 2011, p. 65.

  104. 104.

    See in this regard infra 5.3.2ff.

  105. 105.

    See supra Sect.  5.2.1.

  106. 106.

    See, e.g., Kinsch 2007, pp. 44–45; Matscher 1998, p. 218. See generally the literature cited supra n. 98.

  107. 107.

    See supra Sect. 5.4.1.

  108. 108.

    See, e.g., Briggs and Rees 2009, pp. 19–20.

  109. 109.

    See for an overview of the use of this ground of jurisdiction in the EU Member States Nuyts 2007a, pp. 64–66.

  110. 110.

    See Nuyts 2007a, pp. 21–22.

  111. 111.

    See supra n. 10.

  112. 112.

    See supra n. 12.

  113. 113.

    See also supra Chap. 2.

  114. 114.

    See Article 9 of Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering (Dutch Civil Procedure) and Article 3 of the Swiss Private International Law Act. Another distinction is the much more prominent place of forum non conveniens in England. See infra Sect. “Forum Non Conveniens”.

  115. 115.

    See with regard to the rules on jurisdiction in England, e.g., Dicey et al. 2012, p. 371ff.

  116. 116.

    It could be noted in this regard that during the parliamentary proceedings leading up the new forum necessitatis clause in the Dutch Civil Procedure Code, reference was made explicitly to Article 3 of the Swiss Private International Law Act. See Kamerstukken II 1999/00, 26 885, nr. 3, p. 41ff (MvT).

  117. 117.

    See Article 9 sub –b Rv. It should be noted that the forum necessitatis clause of Article 9 sub—c does require a certain connection with the Netherlands. See generally with regard to forum necessitatis in the Netherlands Ibili 2007, p. 107ff; Strikwerda 2012, pp. 234–235. See for an interesting Dutch case on forum necessitatis, e.g., Rb. ’s-Gravenhage, 21 March 2012, LJN BV 9748.

  118. 118.

    See Article 3 of the Swiss Private International Law Act. See generally with regard to this rule in Switzerland, e.g., Bucher 2011, pp. 62–66; Othenin-Girard 1999, pp. 251–285.

  119. 119.

    Although it should be noted that while the Netherlands did not have such a rule in the Dutch Civil Procedure Code, courts occasionally filled in this gap. See, e.g., HR 26 October 1984, NJ 1985, 696.

  120. 120.

    This interaction between the forum necessitatis rule and the previously incorporated exorbitant ground of jurisdiction of forum actoris in the Dutch Civil Procedure Code was acknowledged during the parliamentary proceedings. It was explicitly stated that the forum necessitatis should not result in the return of the forum actoris. See Kamerstukken II 1999/2000, 26 885, nr. 3, p. 41ff (MvT). Cf. Ibili 2007, pp. 121–122.

  121. 121.

    See generally with regard to jurisdiction in England, e.g., Briggs and Rees 2009, p. 407ff; Dicey et al. 2012, p. 371ff; Cheshire et al. 2010, p. 199ff.

  122. 122.

    In short, a claim in personam is a claim brought against someone to compel him or her to do something, such as pay a debt etc. It does not incidentally include most family law cases, such as filing for divorce. See Dicey et al. 2012, p. 371. In addition to an action in personam, there is the action in rem. The action in rem in English law concerns an action that lies with the Admirality court against certain res, particularly a ship, and other res associated with the ship, such as its cargo. See, e.g., Cheshire et al. 2010, p. 414ff.

  123. 123.

    See also infra Sect.  ‘Forum Non Conveniens’. See with regard to the doctrine in England, e.g., Dicey et al. 2012, p. 533ff. See generally, e.g., Brand and Jablonski 2007.

  124. 124.

    It should be noted that many of the rules in this area have undergone significant changes with the continued European harmonization in this area.

  125. 125.

    See supra n. 11.

  126. 126.

    See Section 5(2) of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973.

  127. 127.

    Mark v. Mark [2004] EWCA Civ. 168, [2005] Fam. 267.

  128. 128.

    Mark v. Mark [2004] EWCA Civ. 168, [2005] Fam. 267, no. 40 (per Lord Thorpe LJ) and 71 (Waller LJ). Cf. Fawcett 2007, p. 6.

  129. 129.

    See Mark v. Mark [2004] ECWA Civ 168, Nos. 37–39, and especially No. 38. The essential question for Lord Thorpe LJ was whether the public policy rule, which was set out by Lord Scarman in R v. Barnet London Borough Council, ex p Nilish Shah and held that only a person lawfully in the UK could be regarded as being habitually resident in the UK, should now be recast in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. See also No. 69 (Waller LJ) and No. 88 (Latham LJ).

  130. 130.

    Mark v. Mark [2005] UKHL 42, No. 31. See with regard to this decision Briggs 2006, pp. 675–677.

  131. 131.

    See supra 5.4.2.

  132. 132.

    Obergericht Zürich, II. Zivilkammer, 1 May 1959, Annuaire suisse de droit international 1961, pp. 293–295. This case was delivered well before the entry of the Swiss Private International Law Act of 1987, but would still appear to be relevant with regard to the ground of jurisdiction of forum necessitatis.

  133. 133.

    See ATF 85 II 305, 309.

  134. 134.

    See supra n. 123.

  135. 135.

    Fawcett 2007, pp. 9–10.

  136. 136.

    See also infra Sect. 5.4.3.

  137. 137.

    Lubbe v. Capre Plc [2000] 1 WLR 1545.

  138. 138.

    Spiladia Maritime Corp v. Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460.

  139. 139.

    Lord Bingham opined: “I do not think article 6 [ECHR] supports any conclusion which is not already reached on application of Spiladia principles”. (1561).

  140. 140.

    Cf. Briggs and Rees 2009, p. 20.

  141. 141.

    Fawcett 2007, p. 9.

  142. 142.

    ECJ 1 March 2005, Case C-281/02, Owusu v. Jackson, ECR 2005, I-1383.

  143. 143.

    See with regard to the meaning of this judgment to the future of the instrument, e.g., Duintjer-Tebbens 2006, pp. 95–103; Fentiman 2006, pp. 705–734; Rodger 2006, pp. 71–97.

  144. 144.

    See, e.g., Van Lith 2009; see for an early example H. Gaudemet-Tallon 1991, p. 491ff. It could, incidentally, be noted that the old Dutch Civil Procedure Code did contain a more or less general provision on forum non conveniens. However, this rule disappeared with the introduction of the new Dutch Civil Procedure Code in 2002. See Kamerstukken II, 1999/2000, 26 855, nr. 3, pp. 30–31. However, the doctrine has not entirely disappeared in Dutch civil procedure. In some family law disputes the Dutch judge may decline jurisdiction. See Article 4(3)–b and Article 5 Rechtsvordering [Dutch Civil Procedure Code]. However, the scope of these two exceptions is rather limited.

  145. 145.

    See with regard to England particularly Lubbe v. Capre Plc [2000] 1 WLR 1545.

  146. 146.

    See infra Sect. 5.5.

  147. 147.

    See supra 5.4.1.

  148. 148.

    Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, ECHR 1999-I. See also Beer and Regan v. Germany [GC], no. 28934/95, 18 February 1999, which was decided at the same time and is identical in its wording.

  149. 149.

    Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, para 68, ECHR 1999-I.

  150. 150.

    Cf. Kloth 2010, p. 141ff; De Wet 2006, p. 620.

  151. 151.

    See supra Sect. 5.2.2.

  152. 152.

    See infra Sect. 5.4.3.3.

  153. 153.

    See further infra Sect. 5.4.3.4.

  154. 154.

    This is nevertheless not always the case. See infra Sect.  5.6.1.

  155. 155.

    Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, para 55, Series A no. 93 (referring to not only Golder v. the United Kingdom, para 36. Series A no. 18, but additionally to Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, para 44 and Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, para 81).

  156. 156.

    Marchadier 2007, p. 86.

  157. 157.

    See in this regard also Al-Bassam v. Al-Bassam (infra n. 163).

  158. 158.

    See supra n. 69.

  159. 159.

    Eskinazi and Chelouche v. Turkey (dec.), no. 14600/05, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts).

  160. 160.

    Eskinazi and Chelouche v. Turkey (dec.), no. 14600/05, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts), under ‘2. The Court’s assessment’ (referring to Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, para 88, ECHR 2005-I; Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, ECHR 2001-XI; Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, judgment of 26 June 1992, Series A no. 240, para 110; and Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, para 113). See with regard to the Court’s case law concerning the extra-territorial effect of the ECHR also supra Chap. 4.

  161. 161.

    See supra Sects. 3.5.1.3 and ‘The Extra-Territorial Effect of the ECHR’ Chap. 4.

  162. 162.

    Al-Bassam v. Al-Bassam, [2004] EWCA Civ. 857.

  163. 163.

    Cf. Fawcett 2007, at p. 13.

  164. 164.

    See in this regard Fawcett 2007, p. 13. The argument of the Court of Appeal regarding the possibility to deny recognition and enforcement is indeed more relevant with regard to the refusal to grant an injunction.

  165. 165.

    See further infra Sect. 8.2.

  166. 166.

    See supra the discussion of Eskinazi following n. 160.

  167. 167.

    OT Africa Line Ltd v. Hijazy (The Kribi) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Report 76.

  168. 168.

    OT Africa Line Ltd v. Hijazy (The Kribi) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Report 76, no. 42 (per Aikens J).

  169. 169.

    See also Fawcett 2007, p. 7.

  170. 170.

    See supra Sect. 5.4.3.

  171. 171.

    Ibili 2007, pp. 125–126.

  172. 172.

    See, e.g., Rb. ‘s-Gravenhage 12 January 2006, LJN AV2498. The district court held that it had jurisdiction, although this was not based on Article 9(c) Rv.

  173. 173.

    See Ktg. Amsterdam, 5 January 1996, NIPR 1996, 145 in which pilots of Kuwait Airways, who (also) lived in the Netherlands, who had previously held the Iraqi nationality, successfully argued that they could not receive a fair trial in Kuwait, because of their previous nationality. The Dutch judge set aside the exclusive choice-of-court clause and asserted jurisdiction.

  174. 174.

    This is a condition for the application of the forum necessitatis exception in Switzerland. See generally on this condition Bucher 2011, pp. 65–66; Othenin-Girard 1999, pp. 272–275 and the works cited there.

  175. 175.

    See Othenin-Girard 1999, p. 272. See also Tribunal fédéral, 5 March 1991, La Semaine judicidaire 1991, p. 457, in which this possibility was essentially raised in a case concerning a divorce in the Netherlands.

  176. 176.

    See infra Sect. 5.5.

  177. 177.

    Airey v. Ireland. 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, para 24.

  178. 178.

    Briggs and Rees 2009, p. 21.

  179. 179.

    One could argue that this could constitute a violation of Article 8 ECHR (the right to private and family life) taken in conjunction with Article 14 ECHR (the prohibition of discrimination).

  180. 180.

    Gerechtshof ’s-Gravenhage, 21 December 2005, EB 2006, 32; NJF 2006, 154.

  181. 181.

    Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility, OJ 2000, L 160/19. This regulation has been replaced by the Brussels II bis Regulation. See supra n. 11.

  182. 182.

    After the majority of the Maltese population in a (non-binding) referendum voted for the legalization of divorce, the Maltese parliament has passed a law legalizing divorce. The law was due to take effect in October 2011.

  183. 183.

    The Gerechtshof referred to ECJ 10 July 2003, Booker Aquaculture and Hydo Seafood, Cases C-20/00 and C-64/00, ECR 2003, I-7411.

  184. 184.

    See supra n. 114.

  185. 185.

    See with regard to this case, e.g., Boele-Woelki 2006, pp. 5503–5504; Ibili 2007, pp. 118, 147; Schmidt 2007, pp. 116–121. Boele-Woelki and Ibili agree with the substantive result reached by the court, even though they question the method used by the court. Schmidt, on the other hand, finds that the Dutch court could rely on its national rules, despite the Brussels II bis Regulation being applicable, but questions whether the result reached by the court is correct.

  186. 186.

    Cf. Ibili 2007, p. 146. But see Schmidt 2007, p. 117, who argues that it would still be possible for a Dutch court to refer to its national rules on jurisdiction (including its forum necessitatis clause, if the Articles 3–5 of the Brussels II bis Regulation (see supra n. 11) do not point to a competent court, Article 7 would refer back to the national rules on jurisdiction of the court seized.

  187. 187.

    See supra Sect. 5.4.3.3.

  188. 188.

    See in this regard Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, Series A no. 122.

  189. 189.

    See further infra Sect. 5.5.

  190. 190.

    See Bucher 2011, p. 64. Cf. Obergericht Zürich, BlZR 89 1990, no. 65, p. 139.

  191. 191.

    HR 1 September 2006, RvdW 2006, 769; JOL 2006, 475; JPF 2006, 136 (note Oderkerk). See with regard to this case also Schmidt 2007.

  192. 192.

    See supra n. 182.

  193. 193.

    It did so on the basis of Article 81 RO, which states that if the complaint before the HR cannot lead to cassation and no important questions of law are brought up, the HR may dismiss the complaint without stating further reasons.

  194. 194.

    See supra n. 192.

  195. 195.

    See supra n. 181.

  196. 196.

    ATF, 19 April 2010, 5A_171/2010 (unpublished).

  197. 197.

    See supra n. 69.

  198. 198.

    See supra Sect. 5.4.3.3.

  199. 199.

    See infra Chap. 7.

  200. 200.

    Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, para 61, Series A no. 316-B.

  201. 201.

    See, e.g., infra n. 210.

  202. 202.

    See also supra Sect. 5.4.1.

  203. 203.

    But see the partly dissenting opinion of Judge Jambrek. He found that, while the security for costs order pursued a legitimate aim, it was disproportionate.

  204. 204.

    See Aït-Mouhoub v. France, 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII.

  205. 205.

    See also Marchadier 2007, p. 70ff.

  206. 206.

    It should be noted that several manifestations of the cautio judicatium solvi have, with regard to discrimination, come under fire from the European Court of Justice. See for an early example ECJ 1 July 1993, Case C 20/92, Hubbard v. Hamburger, ECR 1993, I-3777; see also Van Hoek, 2000, pp. 251–258; see also infra n. 213.

  207. 207.

    See ECJ 20 March 1997, Case C-323/95, David Charles Hayes and Jeannette Karen Hayes v. Kronenberger GmbH., ECR 1997, I-1711.

  208. 208.

    See Dicey et al. 2012, pp. 309–317.

  209. 209.

    [2001] EWCA Civ 556, [2002] 1 All E.R. 401 (CA).

  210. 210.

    See supra n. 81.

  211. 211.

    Article 224 Rv [Dutch Civil Procedure Code].

  212. 212.

    Hof Amsterdam, 17 July 2008, NIPR 2009, 31.

  213. 213.

    Article 6 of the EC Treaty prohibited any discrimination on grounds of nationality.

  214. 214.

    One should note that this article was also discussed in Nasser (supra n. 210).

  215. 215.

    Article 152 Rv (oud) [(former) Dutch Civil Procedure]. This was the article of the former Dutch Civil Procedure Code, in which the rules concerning the cautio judicatum solvi were laid down. This article prescribed that all aliens could be required to pay security. This article has since been amended and the current article now uses residence as the connecting factor.

  216. 216.

    Rb. Rotterdam, 22 March 2001, NIPR 2001, 300.

  217. 217.

    Article 26 ICCPR states the following. ‘All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.’

  218. 218.

    Rb. Rotterdam, 11 January 2001, NIPR 2001, 146.

  219. 219.

    ATF 132 I 134.

  220. 220.

    The Hague Convention of 1 March 1954 on Civil Procedure, entry into force 12 April 1957.

  221. 221.

    The Federal Tribunal cited in this regard García Manibardo v. Spain, no. 38695/97, para 36 , ECHR 2000-II, as well as Patrono, Cascini and Stefanelli v. Italy, no. 10180/04, para 58, 20 April 2006 and Besseau v. France, no. 73893/01, para 23, 7 March 2006.

  222. 222.

    Referring to Tolstoy v. the United Kingdom (supra n. 81) and Kreuz v. Poland (supra n. 86).

  223. 223.

    ATF 131 II 169, at no. 2.3.3.

  224. 224.

    See supra Sect. 5.4.3.3. Note that the extent to which this is actually possible is not clear.

  225. 225.

    See, e.g., Airey v. Ireland. 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32 and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, ECHR 2005-II.

  226. 226.

    See, e.g., James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98; Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102; Darby v. Sweden, 23 October 1990, Series A no. 187.

  227. 227.

    Gaygusuz v. Austria, 16 September 1996, para 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV.

  228. 228.

    Cf. Marchadier 2007, p. 79.

  229. 229.

    Decision of the European Commission of Human Rights, no. 6200/73, 13 May 1976.

  230. 230.

    Decision of the European Commission of Human Rights, no. 6200/73, 13 May 1976, in 2 Digest of Strasbourg case law relating to the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 6) (Köln, Heymann 1984), p. 269.

  231. 231.

    See infra Sect.  5.5.2.

  232. 232.

    H v. the United Kingdom, no. 10000/82, decision of 4 July 1983, D.R. 33, p. 247.

  233. 233.

    Currently Article 35(1) ECHR. See supra Sect. 3.2.

  234. 234.

    The jurisdiction of the English courts in this case over the defendant, who was not domiciled there, was derived from the fact that the contract was governed by English law.

  235. 235.

    H v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 10000/82, 4 July 1983, D.R. 33, p. 255.

  236. 236.

    See, e.g., Guinchard 2005, pp. 199–245; Juenger 1984a, p. 44ff; Kinsch 2007, pp. 65–67; Lagarde 1986, pp. 155–157; Matscher 1993, pp. 80–81; Nuyts 2005, p. 30ff; Schlosser 1991, p. 16.

  237. 237.

    There is a vast amount of literature on this particular subject. See, e.g., the works cited infra n. 244.

  238. 238.

    See in addition to the writers cited infra also Cohen 1989, p. 454ff.

  239. 239.

    Von Mehren 2002, p. 75.

  240. 240.

    Juenger 1984b, p. 1196.

  241. 241.

    95 US 714 (1877).

  242. 242.

    95 US at 733.

  243. 243.

    Whitten 1981, p. 835.

  244. 244.

    It should be noted that the implication of Pennoyer v. Neff did not become entirely clear until the Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. Menefee decision of the Supreme Court in 1915. (237 US 189). Cf. Von Mehren 2007, p. 86.

  245. 245.

    326 US 310 (1945).

  246. 246.

    326 US at 316.

  247. 247.

    See supra n. 237.

  248. 248.

    See supra n. 230.

  249. 249.

    International Shoe v. Washington, 336 US 310, 316. See Kinsch 2007, pp. 66–67; Nuyts 2005, p. 52.

  250. 250.

    Supra n. 231 [emphasis added].

  251. 251.

    Hill 2003, p. 41.

  252. 252.

    Michaels 2005–2006, p. 1053 [emphasis in original].

  253. 253.

    See, e.g., Hay 1991, p. 281ff; Von Mehren 2002.

  254. 254.

    Michaels 2005–2006, p. 1054.

  255. 255.

    See in this regard, e.g., Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom supra n. 73. See also Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A.

  256. 256.

    See, e.g., Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, para 33, Series A no. 274.

  257. 257.

    Cf. Nuyts 2005, p. 56ff; Kinsch 2007, p. 65ff.

  258. 258.

    See Article 3 of, respectively, the 1968 Brussels Convention and the 1988 Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters.

  259. 259.

    It should be noted that in the recast of the Brussels I Regulation the same rules will largely apply to defendants from within and outside of the EU. See supra n. 15. However, one could argue that with the new supplemental grounds of jurisdiction proposed, a new ground of exorbitant jurisdiction is created. This will depend on the interpretation of these articles, which for the moment appear to be broadly interpretable. See also Dickinson 2010, p. 280.

  260. 260.

    See, e.g., Hartley 2008, pp. 19–23; Juenger 1984a, pp. 43–44; Schlosser 1991.

  261. 261.

    See supra Sect. 5.4.

  262. 262.

    See the discussion supra Sects. 5.5.1 and 5.5.2.

  263. 263.

    See generally on how the Court deals with competing rights supra Chap. 3.

  264. 264.

    Kinsch 2007, pp. 47–51.

  265. 265.

    See supra Sect. 5.4.1.

  266. 266.

    See supra Sect. ‘The Right of Access to a Court: Forum Necessitatis’.

  267. 267.

    See with regard to the notion of forum shopping, e.g., Lowenfeld 1997, pp. 314–324.

  268. 268.

    As Lord Simon of Glaisdale eloquently put it in The Atlantic Star [1974] A.C. 436 at 471: ‘“Forum shopping” is a dirty word; but it is only a pejorative way of saying that, if you offer a plaintiff a choice of jurisdictions, he will naturally choose the one in which he thinks his case can be most favourably presented: this should be a matter neither for surprise nor indignation.’

  269. 269.

    Articles 27–30 Brussels I Regulation. See on the notion of lis pendens in the Brussels I Regulation, e.g., Gebauer 2007, pp. 89–100. See more generally on this notion McLachlan 2008, pp. 203–553.

  270. 270.

    See supra Sect. ‘Forum Non Conveniens’.

  271. 271.

    Cf. Dickinson 2007, pp. 115-123. See also ECJ 9 December 2003, Case C-116/02 Erich Gasser GmbH v. MISAT Srl, ECR 2003, I-14693, para 67.

  272. 272.

    See in this regard e.g. Von Mehren 1998, pp. 409–424.

  273. 273.

    See, e.g., Bomhoff 2004, p. 1ff; Gebauer 2007.

  274. 274.

    See ECJ 8 December 1987, Case C-144/86, Gubisch Maschinenfabrik/Giulio Palumbo, ECR 1987, I-4861 and ECJ 6 December 1994, Case C-406/92, Tatry v. Maciej Rataj, ECR 1994, I-5439. See also with regard to Article 5(3) Brussels I Regulation the recent case of the CJEU 25 October 2012, Case C-133/11, Folien Ficher and Fofitec (not yet published), in which the court held that an action for a negative declaration seeking to establish the absence of liability in a tort case could fall within the afore-mentioned article. With this finding the court, incidentally, went against the Opinion of the Advocate General.

  275. 275.

    Case C-116/02, Erich Gasser GmbH v. MISAT Srl [2003] ECR I-14693.

  276. 276.

    This was actually disputed, but the case was considered by the ECJ on the assumption that the choice-of-court agreement was valid.

  277. 277.

    Case C-116/02, Erich Gasser GmbH v. MISAT Srl [2003] ECR I-14693, para 48.

  278. 278.

    Case C-116/02, Erich Gasser GmbH v. MISAT Srl [2003] ECR, I-14693, para 72.

  279. 279.

    Id.

  280. 280.

    See, e.g., Briggs 2005; Dickinson 2007; Hartley 2005, pp. 383–391; Nuyts 2007b, pp. 55–73; see generally the contributions in the latter book.

  281. 281.

    Cf. Gaudemet-Tallon 2006, at p. 184ff.

  282. 282.

    See, e.g., ECJ 28 March 2000, Case C-7/98, Krombach v. Bamberski, ECR 2000, I-1935. See with regard to this case further infra Sect. .8.2.2.1.

  283. 283.

    Fawcett 2007, pp. 14–15; Cf. Nuyts 2007b supra n. 281, at p. 60.

  284. 284.

    Cf. Bomhoff 2004, p. 7ff.

  285. 285.

    See supra Sect. 5.4.1.

  286. 286.

    See supra Sect. 5.4.3.2.

  287. 287.

    See, e.g., Salesi v. Italy, 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-E. In response to the numerous breaches of the right to have judicial proceedings within a reasonable time in Italy, the so-called Pinto Act has been introduced, which enables claimants to have such violations remedied at the domestic level. This has, however, not solved all such problems. See, e.g., Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/9, ECHR 2006-V.

  288. 288.

    See supra Sects. 5.4.1 and 5.4.3 See also supra n. 81.

  289. 289.

    See supra Sect. 5.4.3.

  290. 290.

    See supra n. 288.

  291. 291.

    Cf. Hartley 2005, pp. 389–390.

  292. 292.

    In this regard one could note that—under admittedly entirely different circumstances—the Court has held, in a case of Community law possibly violating the rights guaranteed in the ECHR, that it was not necessary to examine whether the measure had been proportionate to the aim pursued, as it held that the protection of fundamental rights by Community law is, in principle, equivalent to the protection of the ECHR system. See Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, para 155, ECHR 2005-VI. This case concerned the issue of whether the implementation of a sanction regime by Ireland by way of EC Regulation 990/93 would violate Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 ECHR, the right to property. It is unclear whether the Court would follow a similar line of reasoning with regard to conflicting requirements under the Brussels I Regulation and Article 6(1) ECHR, but this is most likely. In a fairly recent case concerning, inter alia, the relationship between EU law and the ECHR in the context of an issue of private international law (international child abduction), Povse v. Austria (dec.), no. 3890/11, 18 June 2013, the Court indeed followed the equivalent protection doctrine it introduced in Bosphorus. This case concerned the enforcement of an Italian return order in Austria on the basis of the Brussels IIbis Regulation. The applicants, the mother and daughter, argued that the enforcement of the return order had violated their rights under Article 8 ECHR. In this case the Austrian Supreme Court had asked for a preliminary ruling of the CJEU concerning the interpretation of the Brussels IIbis Regulation. In its ruling the CJEU stated—in short—that there was no room for review of the return order by the Austrian Supreme Court. The Court held that the preliminary ruling left no discretion for Austria in ordering the return. The case therefore had to be distinguished from M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, ECHR 2011 and Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, ECHR 2012. Even though the CJEU did in its preliminary ruling not deal with the alleged violation of the fundamental rights of the applicants (which distinguished the case from Bosphorus), the Court was not convinced that the enforcement of the return order by Austria without review would rob the applicants of their rights. Under the EU system these rights simply had to be protected by the Italian courts. See with regard to this case further EHRC 2013/70 (note Kiestra).

  293. 293.

    See, e.g., Amendment 121 by the European Parliament, 2010/0383(COD). See also 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 2012, L 351/1.

  294. 294.

    It could be argued that solutions to this problem of international litigation should be sought elsewhere. One could think of sanctions derived from domestic or Community law against the abuse of procedural rights. However, the most salient approach to this problem is, in my opinion, connected to ‘due process’, which can be derived from Article 6 ECHR. See with regard to the abuse of procedure Briggs 2011, pp. 261–277. See for a response in the same book Cuniberti 2011, pp. 279–288. See also Normand 1999, pp. 237–248 and Mancini 1999, pp. 233–236.

References

  • Adede AO (1976) A fresh look at the meaning of the doctrine of denial of justice under international law. Can Yearb Int Law 14:73–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Akehurst M (1972–1973) Jurisdiction in international law. BYIL 46:145–257

    Google Scholar 

  • April S (1984) Blocking statutes as a response to the extra-territorial application of law. In: Olmstead CJ (ed) Extra-territorial application of law and responses thereto. ESC Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaumont P (2009) Hague choice of court agreements convention 2005: background, negotiations, analysis and current status. J Private Int Law 5:125–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Boele-Woelki K (2006) International Privaatrecht [Private International Law]. Ars Aequi 55:5503–5504

    Google Scholar 

  • Bomhoff JA (2004) Het negatief declaratoir in de EEX-Verordening. Strategie, misbruik van procesrecht en de doorwerking van grondrechten in het Europese IPR [The negative declaratory in the Brussels-I regulation. Strategy, abuse of procedure and the impact of fundamental rights on European private international law]. NIPR 22:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Brand RA, Jablonski SR (2007) Forum non conveniens: history, global practice, and future under the Hague convention on choice of court agreements. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs A (2005) The impact of recent judgments of the European court on English procedural law and practice. Zeitschrift für Schweizerisches recht 124:231–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs A (2006) Decisions of British courts during 2005 involving questions of private international law. BYBIL 76:554–596

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs A (2011) The rejection of abuse in international civil procedure. In: Feria R de la, Vogenauer S, Prohibition of abuse of law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 261–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs A, Rees P (2009) Civil jurisdiction and judgments. Informa, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie I (2008) Principles of public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucher A (ed) (2011) Loi sur le droit international privé. Convention de Lugano, Helbing Lichtenhahn, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheshire GC et al (2010) Private international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen D (1989) La convention européenne des droits de l’homme et le droit international privé. Rev.crit.dr.int.priv. 78:451–483

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbion L (2004) Le déni de justice en droit international privé. Presses universitaires d’Aix-Marseille, Aix-en-Provence

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuniberti G (2011) The discrete influence of abuse of law in international civil procedure. In: de la Feria R, Vogenauer S (eds) Prohibition of abuse of law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 279–288

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vareilles-Sommières P (1997) La compétence international de l’état en matière de droit privé: droit international public et droit international privé. LGDJ, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • De Wet E (2006) The emergence of international and regional value systems as a manifestation of the emerging international constitutional order. Leiden J Int. Law 19:611–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Winter LI (1968) Excessive jurisdiction in private international law. ILCQ 17:706–720

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicey AV, Morris JHC, Collins LA (2012) The conflict of laws. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson A (2007) Legal certainty and the Brussels convention: too much of a good thing? In: de Vareilles-Sommières P (ed) Forum shopping in the European judicial area. Hart, Oxford, pp 115–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson A (2010) Surveying the proposed Brussels I “bis” regulation: solid foundations but renovation needed. Yearb Private Int Law 12:247–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Duintjer-Tebbens H (2006) From Jamaica with pain: enkele aantekeningen bij het arrest van 1 maart 2005 van het Hof van Justitie in de zaak Owusu [From Jamaica with pain: a few notes on the judgment of 1 March 2005 of the ECJ in the case Owusu]. In: Grinten P van der, Heukels T (eds) Crossing borders: essays in European and private international law, nationality law and islamic law in honour of Frans van der Velden. Kluwer, Deventer, p. 95–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Fawcett JJ (2007) The impact of article 6(1) ECHR on private international law. ILCQ 56:1–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Fentiman R (2006) Civil jurisdiction and third states: Owusu and after. CML Rev 43:705–734

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández Arroyo DP (2004) Exorbitant and exlusive grounds of jurisdiction in European private international law: will they ever survive? In: Mansel H-P (ed) Festschrift für Erik Jayme, vol I. Sellier European Law Publishers, Munich, pp 169–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Focarelli C (2012) Denial of justice. In: Wolfrum R (ed) The Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford. www.mpepil.com. Accessed Apr 2012

  • Francioni F (ed) (2007) Access to justice as a human right. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaudemet-Tallon H (1991) Forum non conveniens: une menace pour la convention de Bruxelles (a propos de trois arrets anglais récents). Rev.crit.dr.int.priv 80:491–524

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaudemet-Tallon H (2006) Le “droit au juge” à l’épreuve des règles de compétence judiciaire internationale (matière civile et commercial). In: Léger P (ed) Le droit a la mesure de l’homme. Pedone, Paris, pp 173–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebauer M (2007) Lis pendens, negative declaratory-judgments actions and the first-in-time principle. In: Gottschalk E et al (eds) Conflict of laws in a globalized world. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 89–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Guinchard E (2005) Procès équitable (article 6 CESDH) et droit international privé. In: Nuyts A, Watté N (eds) International civil litigation in Europe and relations with third states. Bruylant, Brussels, pp 199–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley TC (2005) Choice-of-court agreements, Lis Pendens, human rights and the realities of international business: reflections on the gasser case. In: Jobard-Bachellier M-N, Mayer P (eds) Le droit international privé: esprit et methodes. Mélanges en l’honneur de Paul Lagarde, Dalloz, Paris, pp 383–391

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley TC (2006) The modern approach to private international law. international litigation and transactions from a common-law perspective. Recueil des Cours 319:9–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley TC (2008) The Brussels regulation and non-community states. In: Basedow J (ed) Japanese and European private international law in comparative perspective. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 19–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay P (1991) Flexibility versus predictability and uniformity in choice of law. Reflections on current European and United States conflicts law. Recueil des Cours 226:282–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess B (2012) Staatenimmunität und ius cogens im geltenden Völkerrecht: der international Gerichtshof zeigt die Grenze auf [Immunities of the state and ius cogens in current public international law: the ICJ illustrates the boundaries]. IPRax 32:201–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins R (1999) Allocating competence: jurisdiction (1993). In: Reisman WM (ed) Jurisdiction in international law. Ashgate, Dartmouth, p 263ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill J (2003) The exercise of jurisdiction in private international law. In: Capps P et al (eds) Asserting jurisdiction. international and European legal perspectives. Hart Publishing, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibili F (2007) Gewogen rechtsmacht in het IPR. Over forum (non) conveniens en forum necessitatis [Weighed jurisdiction in private international law. On forum (non) conveniens and forum necessitatis]. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Joubert N (2007) La notion de liens suffisants avec l’ordre juridique (Inlandsbeziehung) en droit international privé. LexisNexis Litec, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Juenger FK (1984a) La Convention de Bruxelles du 27 septembre 1968 et la courtoise international. Réflexions d’un Américain. Rev.crit dr.int.priv. 37

    Google Scholar 

  • Juenger FK (1984b) Judicial jurisdiction in the United States and in the European communities: a comparison. Mich Law Rev 82:1195–1212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn-Freund O (1976) General problems of private international law. A.W. Sijthoff, Leyden

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamminga MT (2012) Extraterritoriality. In: Wolfrum R (ed) The Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford. www.mpepil.com. Accessed April 2012

  • Kessedjian C (1997) International jurisdiction and foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters, Preliminary Document No 7 of April 1997 for the attention of the special commission of June 1997 on the question of jurisdiction, and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters. www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.publications&dtid=35&cid=98. Accessed Nov 2012

  • Kinsch P (2007) Droits de l’homme, droits fondamentaux et droit international privé. Recueil des Cours 318:9–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloth M (2010) Immunities and the right of access to court under article 6 of the European convention on human rights. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lagarde P (1986) Le Principe de Proximité Dans Le Droit International Privé Contemporain. Cours général de droit international privé, Recueil des Cours 196

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenfeld AF (1997) Forum shopping, antisuit injunctions, negative declarations and related tools of international litigation. AJIL 91:314–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) (2012) Brussels I regulation. Sellier European Law Publishers, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Mancini F (1999) Short note on abuse of procedure in community law. In: Taruffo M (ed) Abuse of procedural rights: comparative standards of procedural fairness. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 233–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann FA (1964) The doctrine of jurisdiction in international law. Recueil des Cours 111:1–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann FA (1984) The doctrine of international jurisdiction revisited after 20 years. Recueil des Cours 186:9–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchadier F (2007) Les objectifs généraux du droit international privé a l’épreuve de la convention européenne des droits de l’homme. Bruylant, Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  • Matscher F (1978) Etude des règles de compétence judiciaire dans certaines conventions internationales. Recueil des Cours 161:127–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Matscher F (1993) Die Einwirkungen der EMRK auf das Internationale Privat- und zivilprozessuale Verfahrensrecht. In: Matscher F (ed), Europa im Aufbruch: Festschrift für Fritz Schwind zum 80. Geburtstag, Manzsche Verlags- und Universitätsbuchhandlung, Wien, pp 71–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Matscher F (1998) Le droit international privé face à la convention européenne des droits de l’homme, travaux du comité français de droit international privé (1995–1998), pp 211–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer P (1979) Droit international privé et droit international public sous l’angle de la notion de compétence. Rev.crit.dr.int.priv. 68: 1–29; 349–388; 537–583

    Google Scholar 

  • McLachlan C (2004) International litigation and the reworking of the conflict of laws. LQR 120:580–616

    Google Scholar 

  • McLachlan CC (2008) Lis pendens in international litigation. Recueil des Cours 336:203–553

    Google Scholar 

  • Meessen KM (1984) International law limitations on state jurisdiction. In: Olmstead CJ (ed) Extra-territorial application of laws and responses thereto. ESC Publishing, Oxford, pp 38–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels R (2005–2006) Two paradigms of jurisdiction. Mich J Int Law 27:1003–1069

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadelmann KH (1961) Jurisdictionally improper fora. In: Nadelmann KH et al XXth century comparative law and conflicts law. legal essays in honor of Hessel E. Yntema. A.W. Sythoff, Leyden, pp 321–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Normand J (1999) Final report: the two approaches to the abuse of procedural rights. In: Taruffo M (ed) Abuse of procedural rights: comparative standards of procedural fairness. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 237–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuyts A (2005) Due process and fair trial: jurisdiction in the United States and in Europe compared, 2 CILE studies. In: Brand RA, Walter M (eds) Private law, private international law and judicial cooperation in the EU-US relationship, Thomson/West, Eagan MN, pp 27–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuyts A (2007a) A study on residual jurisdiction (review of the member states’ rules concerning the “residual jurisdiction” of their courts in civil and commercial matters pursuant to the Brussels I and II regulations), general report, final version dated 3 Sept 2007, pp 64–66. http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/news/docs/study_residual_jurisdiction_en.pdf. Accessed Oct 2012

  • Nuyts A (2007b) The enforcement of jurisdiction agreements further to gasser and the community principle of abuse of rights. In: De Vareilles-Sommières P (ed) Forum shopping in the European judicial area. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 55–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Olmstead CJ (ed) (1984) Extra-territorial application of laws and responses thereto. ESC Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Othenin-Girard S (1999) Quelques observations sur le for de nécessité en droit international privé. RSDIE 9:251–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxman BH (2012) Jurisdiction of states. In: Wolfrum R (ed) The Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. Oxford University Press 2008-, online edition, www.mpepil.com. Accessed Apr 2012

  • Paulsson J (2005) Denial of justice in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pontier JA, Burg E (2004) EU principles on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters according to the case law of the European Court of Justice. T.M.C Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodger BJ (2006) Forum non conveniens post Owusu. J Private Int Law 2:71–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser P (1991) Jurisdiction in international litigation: the issue of human rights in relation to national law and to the Brussels convention. Rivista di diritto internazionale 74:5–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser P (2000) Jurisdiction and international judicial and administrative co-operation. Recueil des Cours 284:9–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt GE (2007) Forum necessitatis bij echtscheidingen. NIPR 25:116–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (2008) International law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair I (1984) The diplomatic response. In: Olmstead CJ (ed) Extra-territorial application of law and responses thereto. ESC Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Strikwerda L (2012) Inleiding tot het Nederlandse internationaal privaatrecht [Introduction to Dutch private international law]. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • van Hoek AAH (2000) Artikel 12 EG-verdrag en het (internationale) procesrecht hernieuwde kritiek op de cautio judicatum solvi [Article 12 EC-treaty and (international) procedural law; renewed criticism of the cautio judicatum solvi]. NIPR 18:251–258

    Google Scholar 

  • van Lith H (2009) International jurisdiction and commercial litigation. T.M.C Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Visscher Ch de (1935) Le déni de justice en droit international. Recueil des Cours 52:363–442

    Google Scholar 

  • von Mehren AT (1998) The transmogrification of defendants into plaintiffs: herein of declaratory judgments, forum shopping, and Lis Pendens. In: Basedow J (ed) Festschrift FürUlrich Drobnig. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 409–424

    Google Scholar 

  • von Mehren AT (2002) Theory and practice of adjudicatory authority in private international law: a comparative study of the doctrine, policies and practices of common- and civil-law systems. general course on private international law. Recueil des Cours 295:9–431

    Google Scholar 

  • von Mehren AT (2007) Adjudicatory authority in private international law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, A Comparative Study

    Google Scholar 

  • von Mehren AT, Trautman DT (1966) Jurisdiction to adjudicate: a suggested analysis. Harvard Law Rev 79:1121–1179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wautelet P (2004) What has international private law achieved in meeting the challenges posed by globalization? In: Slot PJ, Bulterman M (eds) Globalisation and jurisdiction. Kluwer International Law, The Hague, pp 55–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitten R (1981) The constitutional limitations on state-court jurisdiction: a historical-interpretative reexamination of the full faith and credit and due process clauses. Creighton Law Rev 14:499–606

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Louwrens Rienk Kiestra

Authors
  1. Louwrens Rienk Kiestra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louwrens Rienk Kiestra .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kiestra, L.R. (2014). Jurisdiction in Private International Law. In: The Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on Private International Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-032-9_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation