Abstract
Although under the Brussels Regulation it is not required to commence a procedure in order to have a judgment recognised and/or enforced in another Member States, the Regulation contains various grounds based on which the recognition and/or enforcement can be refused. These grounds relate to—among others—the correct service of the parties involved, the rules on public order in the Member States were recognition/enforcement is sought, and possible conflicts with other judgments or procedures in other states. A lot of parties are involved in a collective redress procedure and it depends on the type of mechanism whether and how the parties involved need to be served correctly. This chapter will set out whether a collective action judgment can be recognised and or enforced in another Member State based on the rules in the Brussels Regulation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Where a KapMuG procedure is initiated by various individual procedures that will have to be judged pursuant to the model case judgment, the collective action will be started by an interest group. The individual victims may use the judgment that is received in the collective action, but are not obliged to do so.
- 2.
Case C-414/92, Solo Kleinmotoren v. Boch [1994], ECR I-2237, para 17.
- 3.
See Case C-125/79 Denilauler [1980] ECR 1553, para 13 and Case C-394/07, Gambazzi v. DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc. and CIBC Mellon Trust Company [2009], ECR I-2563 para 23.
- 4.
As mentioned earlier, this book does cover situations in which party in a mass dispute whichis not domiciled in a Member State. Moreover matters relating to insurance or one of the exclusive grounds of jurisdiction will not be covered.
- 5.
Case C-167/00 Verein für Konsumenteninformation v. Karl Heinz Henkel [2002], ECR I-8111, para 38.
- 6.
See Teuben 2004, pp. 247–249.
- 7.
Teuben 2004, p. 283.
- 8.
Groenendijk 1981, pp. 78–79.
- 9.
See Teuben 2004, pp. 238–239.
- 10.
See Jenard Report, p. 49.
- 11.
The groups whose common interests are protected by the organisation must be mentioned in the organisation’s articles of association. If it is the intention that the precedent effect also must have a cross-border effect, the non-Dutch victims must also be named as parties whose interests are to be protected.
- 12.
See Jenard Report, p. 43. See also Case C-145/86, Hoffmann v. Krieg [1988], ECR 645, para 10.
- 13.
- 14.
Magnus et al. 2016, p. 815.
- 15.
See Strikwerda 2015, p. 294.
- 16.
They are of course susceptible to recognition in other Member States. See Rosner 2004, pp. 24–25.
- 17.
See Hoffmann v. Krieg C-145/86 (1988) ECR 645 para 21. Also see Bernardus Hendrikman and Maria Feyen v. Magenta Druck & Verlag GmbH, C-78/95 (1996) ECR I-4943 para 23.
- 18.
See Briggs 2009, p. 693.
- 19.
EC Regulation No. 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the Service in the Member States of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters.
- 20.
The Service Regulation offers a wide variety of possible ways to service a defendant: from sending a notification directly, to sending a notification to the specific authorities of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled.
- 21.
Magnus et al. 2016, pp. 927–928.
- 22.
See Commission of the European Communities, Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, COM (1999) 348 final, p. 23 and Rosner 2004, p. 161.
- 23.
Case C-394/07, Gambazzi v. Daimler Chrysler Canada Inc [2009], ECR I-0000, para 48.
- 24.
See Case C-38/98, Régie nationale des usines Renault SA v. Maxicar SpA and Orazio Formento [2000], ECR I-2973, para 34.
- 25.
Proceedings which are still pending do not count. See Magnus et al. 2016, p. 920.
- 26.
The ‘same parties’ must meet the definition given in Article 29 Brussels I-bis. The broader definition in Article 30 Brussels I-bis must be excluded from Article 45(1)(c) Brussels I-bis. See Magnus et al. 2016, p. 919.
- 27.
Proceedings which are still pending do not count. See Magnus et al. 2016, p. 920.
- 28.
Briggs 2009, p. 315.
References
Arons TMC (2012) Cross-border Enforcement of Listed Companies’ Duties to Inform. Kluwer, Deventer
Briggs A (2009) Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments. Informa Law, London
Groenendijk CA (1981) Bundeling van belangen bij de burgerlijke rechter. W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle
Magnus U et al (2016) ‘Brussels I Regulation’. Sellier, Munich
Rosner N (2004) Cross-border recognition and enforcement of foreign money judgments in civil and commercial matters. Thesis Groningen University
Strikwerda L (2015) Inleiding tot het Nederlandse Internationaal Privaatrecht. Kluwer, Deventer
Teuben K (2004) Rechtersregelingen in het burgerlijk (proces)recht. Kluwer, Deventer
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bosters, T. (2017). Recognition and Enforcement in Relation to a Collective Action Procedure. In: Collective Redress and Private International Law in the EU. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-186-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-186-9_11
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-185-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-186-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)