Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Complementarity

  • 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))

  • 474 Accesses

Abstract

The Brussels I Recast and the Rome I Regulations are companions in a gradual unification process of private international law. Their predecessors already had a complementary function as the Rome Convention was created to thwart the tactical manoeuvre of forum shopping possible under the Brussels Convention. By embedding private international law matters in the corpus of Community law, the policy on judicial cooperation in civil matters strengthened their interrelationship even further. Keeping in mind the consistency of the unification process, the conventions were transformed into Regulations with modified content. Serving internal market purposes and being interlinked through a common Treaty competence, the Regulations serve as reference points of interpretation.

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.

    Report on the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters by Mr. P. Jenard [1979] C 59/1, 1, 7.

  2. 2.

    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.

  3. 3.

    Since the Lisbon Treaty, the Court of Justice of the European Union consists of the Court of Justice, the General Court (formerly the Court of First Instance) and specialised courts (formerly known as judicial panels). For the sake of clarity and ease of comprehension, the term ‘Court of Justice’ and the abbreviation ‘CJEU’ will be used throughout the present text to refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

  4. 4.

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

  5. 5.

    Lugano Convention of 1988 [1988] OJ L 319/9. For general comments, see Lechner and Mayr, Das Übereinkommen von Lugano (1996).

  6. 6.

    Jenard and Müller-Report, Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters done at Lugano on 16 September 1988, [1988] OJ C 189/57 para 110.

  7. 7.

    Id., para 111.

  8. 8.

    For general thoughts on ‘forum shopping’, see Vareilles-Sommières 2007.

  9. 9.

    Report on the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations by Mario Giuliano, Professor, University of Milan, and Paul Lagarde, Professor, University of Paris [1980] OJ C 282/1, 4.

  10. 10.

    Id., p. 5.

  11. 11.

    Minutes of the meeting of experts, cited in Id., at 4.

  12. 12.

    Commission document, XIV/398/72. For a comprehensive commentary, see Foyer 1976, pp. 555–658; Lando/Hofmann/Siehr 1975; see also Czernich and Heiss 1999.

  13. 13.

    Accession of the United Kingdom Denmark and Ireland to the EEC in 1973.

  14. 14.

    Cf., however, Siehr 2000, p. 1358 (stating that the plan for a Convention on both contractual as well as non-contractual relations did not materialise because of the double actionability rule of Phillips v Eyre).

  15. 15.

    Giuliano/Lagarde Report, n.9, p. 7.

  16. 16.

    Kuipers 2012, p. 7 (noting that traditional PIL tries to serve international trade as a whole and not just the needs of intra-Union commerce); cf. Roth 1991, p. 638 (noting that already under the EEC Treaty, it was recognised that IPR may have an important role to play for the realisation of the four freedoms); Grundmann 2000, p. 458 (noting that EU private international law is remarkably different from classical PIL; noting on the Rome Convention, however, that it was a classical PIL act).

  17. 17.

    Action Plan of the Council and the Commission on How Best to Implement the Provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice [1999] OJ C 19/1, 15. Similar reflections are outlined in the conclusions of the Tampere summit and, building upon them, the agendas set out in the Mutual Recognition Programme and the Hague Programme.

  18. 18.

    Meeusen 2004, pp. 43, 65.

  19. 19.

    Preamble to the 1980 Rome Convention [1980] OJ 1989 L 266/1, 69: ‘[…] to continue in the field of private international law the work of unification of law which has already been done within the Community, in particular in the field of jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments, [and] to establish uniform rules concerning the law applicable to contractual obligations’ (emphasis added).

  20. 20.

    JLS/C4/2005/03 Report on the Application of Regulation Brussels I in the Member States (2007) 44.

  21. 21.

    Green Paper on the review of Council Regulation No 44/2001 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, COM(2009) 175 final.

  22. 22.

    On the Green Paper and for the function of exequatur, see Oberhammer 2010, p. 197.

  23. 23.

    See Fucik et al. 2010; Mankowski 2010, p. 31.

  24. 24.

    Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, COM(2010) 748 final.

  25. 25.

    See Hess 2011, p. 125.

  26. 26.

    SEC (2010) 147 final.

  27. 27.

    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 [2012] OJ L 351/1.

  28. 28.

    For the changes and the legislative process, see Dickinson 2015, pp. 9–16.

  29. 29.

    Heiss 2009, p. 217.

  30. 30.

    Green Paper on the Conversion of the Rome Convention of 1980 on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations into a Community Instrument and its Modernization, COM(2002) 654 final, para 2.2. For more on this text, see Bonomi, ‘Conversion of the Rome Convention on Contracts into an EC Instrument: Some Remarks on the Green Paper of the EC Commission’ (2003) 5 YPIL 196.

  31. 31.

    Green Paper on the Conversion of the Rome Convention of 1980 on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations into a Community Instrument and its Modernization, COM(2002) 654 final para 1.3.

  32. 32.

    Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Green Paper on the conversion of the Rome Convention of 1980 on the ‘Green Paper on the conversion of the Rome Convention of 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations into a Community instrument and its modernisation’ (COM(2002) 654 final) [2004] OJ C 108/1.

  33. 33.

    European Parliament Resolution on the prospects for approximating civil procedural law in the European Union (COM(2002) 654—COM(2002) 746—C5-0201/2003—2003/2087(INI)), A5-0041/2004.

  34. 34.

    Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) COM (2005) 650, 2.

  35. 35.

    See also Leible 2009, p. 43; Bitter 2008, p. 96; Lein 2008, p. 177.

  36. 36.

    Dickinson 2010, p. 125; Riesenhuber 2015, pp. 200–201.

  37. 37.

    Case C-308/97 Manfredi v. Regione Puglia [1998] ECR I-7685 [30] (recital cannot be relied upon to interpret provision in a manner clearly contrary to its wording); see also Case C-162/97 Criminal proceedings against Nilsson and others [1998] I-07477 (preamble has no binding legal force and cannot be relied on as a ground for derogating from the actual provisions of the act in question); Case C-215/88 Casa Fleischhandels-GmbH v Bundesanstalt für landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung [1989] ECR 2789 [31] (recital may cast light on the interpretation to be given to a legal rule, it cannot in itself constitute such a rule).

  38. 38.

    Case C-134/08 Hauptzollamt Bremen v J. E. Tyson Parketthandel GmbH [2009] ECR I-2975 [16]: ‘in that regard, it must be borne in mind, first, that the preamble to a Community act has no binding legal force and cannot be validly relied on either as a ground for derogating from the actual provisions of the act in question or for interpreting those provisions in a manner clearly contrary to their wording, see, inter alia, Case C-136/04 Deutsches Milch-Kontor [2005] ECR I–10095 [32] and the case-law cited.’

  39. 39.

    Dickinson 2015, p. 28, para 1.77.

  40. 40.

    Case C-533/07, Falco Privatstiftung v Weller-Lindhorst [2009] ECR I-3327 [48-50].

  41. 41.

    Dickinson 2015, p. 27, para 1.73.

  42. 42.

    C-419/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:165, Česká spořitelna, a.s. v Feichter, 32-35; Case C478/12, Maletic v lastminute.com GmbH [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:735 [27]; Case C-147/12 ÖFAB v Koot [2013] EU:C:2013:490 [28]; Case 167/00, Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Henkel [2002] ECR I-8111 [49].

  43. 43.

    Case C-478/12 Maletic v lastminute.com Gmbh and TUI Österreich GmbH [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:735 [27].

  44. 44.

    Case 29/10, Koelzsch v. État du Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, [2011] ECR I-1595 [46].

  45. 45.

    As already mentioned, the first was formally based on Article 220 EEC whereas the latter is a classical international treaty created intergovernmentally outside of the EU legal order.

  46. 46.

    Article 1(1) Protocol 2 on the uniform interpretation of the Convention and on the Standing Committee, L 339/27.

  47. 47.

    Dickinson 2015, p. 27, para 1.74. On the Lugano Convention, see Dasser and Oberhammer 2008.

References

  • Bitter A (2008) Auslegungszusammenhang zwischen Brüssel I-VO und Rom I-VO. IPRax 96-101

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonomi A (2003) Conversion of the Rome Convention on Contracts into an EC Instrument: Some Remarks on the Green Paper of the EC Commission. YPIL 5:53–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Czernich D, Heiss H (1999) EVÜ – Das Europäische Schuldvertragsübereinkommen. Orac Verlag, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasser F, Oberhammer P (2008) Kommentar zum Lugano Übereinkommen. Stämpfli Verlag, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson A (2010) The Rome II Regulation – The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson A (2015) Background and Introduction to the Regulation. In: Lein E, Dickinson A (eds) The Brussels I Recast Regulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1.01–1.141

    Google Scholar 

  • Fucik R and others (2010) Jahrbuch Zivilverfahrensrecht. Manz, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Grundmann S (2000) Binnenmarktkollisionsrecht – vom klassischen IPR zur Integrationsordnung. RabelsZ 64:457

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiss H (2009) Party Autonomy. In: Ferrari F, Leible S (eds) Rome I Regulation: The Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations in Europe. Sellier European Law Publishers, Munich, pp 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess B (2011) Die Reform der EuGVVO und die Zukunft des Europäischen Zivilprozessrechts. IPRax 125-130

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lechner M, Mayr P (1996) Das Übereinkommen von Lugano. WUV-Univ.-Verlag, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Leible S (2009) Rom I und Rom II: Neue Perspektiven im Europäischen Kollisionsrecht. Schriftenreihe des Zentrums für Europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht 173:43–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Lein E (2008) The New Rome I/Rome II/Brussels I Synergy. YPIL 10:177–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Mankowski P (2010) Die Brüssel I-Verordnung vor der Reform. In: Verschraegen B (ed) 1 Interdisciplinary Studies of Comparative and Private International Law. Jan Sramek Verlag, Vienna, pp 31–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Meeusen J (2004) Fifteen Theses on Brussels I, Rome I and the EU’s Institutional Framework. In: Meeusen J and others (eds) Enforcement of International Contracts in the European Union. Intersentia Publishers, Antwerp, pp 43–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P (2010) The Abolition of Exequatur. IPRax 197-203

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth WH (1991) Einfluß des Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht auf das Internationale Privatrecht. RabelsZ 55:623–673

    Google Scholar 

  • Siehr K (2000) Revolution and Evolution in Conflicts law. Louisiana Law Review 60:1353–1360

    Google Scholar 

  • Vareilles-Sommières P (2007) Forum Shopping in the European Judicial Area. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    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). Complementarity. 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_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-367-2_1

  • 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