Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Interconnection of the EU Regulations Brussels I Recast and Rome I pp 49–61Cite as

Selected Concepts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 475 Accesses

Part of the book series: Short Studies in Private International Law ((SSIL))

Abstract

The genetic affinity and complementarity of the Brussels I Recast and Rome I Regulation suggest a systematic approach when interpreting legal terms common to both legal acts. There are many commonalities between the Regulations, such as the notion of civil and commercial matters or the important concepts of ‘direct activity’ or ‘sale of goods’. The contractual concept has a common core, which consists of a legal obligation freely assumed by one person against another. In most of the cases, a contract can thus always be called a contract. Differences remain, nevertheless. Application criteria do not entirely correspond and do not follow the same delimitation lines and the connecting factors are shaped by the underlying rationale of conflict of laws and procedural law respectively. For example, the concept of habitual residence is of limited relevance in the Brussels I Recast Regulation, whilst it is, typical of a conflict of laws legal act, the main connecting factor throughout the Rome I Regulation.

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   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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    C-292/05 Irini Lechouritou and Others v Dimosio tis Omospondiakis Dimokratias tis Germanias [2007] ECR I-1519 [29]; Case C-29/76 LTU [1976] ECR 1541 [3, 5]; Case C-814/79 Rüffer [1980] ECR 3807 [7]; Case C-271/00 Baten [2002] ECR I-10489 [28]; Case C-266/01 Préservatrice foncière TIARD [2003] ECR I-4867 [20].

  2. 2.

    Briggs (2014), pp. 189–192.

  3. 3.

    Article 62(1): In order to determine whether a party is domiciled in the Member State whose courts are seised of a matter, the court shall apply its internal law. (2) If a party is not domiciled in the Member State whose courts are seised of the matter, then, in order to determine whether the party is domiciled in another Member State, the court shall apply the law of that Member State.

  4. 4.

    Article 63(2) provides that, ‘for the purposes of Ireland, Cyprus and the United Kingdom, ‘statutory seat’ means the registered office or, where there is no such office anywhere, the place of incorporation or, where there is no such place anywhere, the place under the law of which the formation took place. 3. In order to determine whether a trust is domiciled in the Member State whose courts are seised of the matter, the court shall apply its rules of private international law.’

  5. 5.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 [2003] OJ L 388/1. The Regulation is oriented to the work of the Hague Conference; the Hague Conventions regularly use the concept of ‘habitual residence’.

  6. 6.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations [2009] L 7/1 (Maintenance Regulation); Regulation (EU) 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession [2012] L 201/107 (Succession Regulation); Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation [2010] L 343/10 (Divorce Regulation).

  7. 7.

    Kruger 2008, p. 73.

  8. 8.

    For the conclusion that the term ‘habitual residence’ is a ‘concept of fact’, see Baetge 1994, pp. 105–106.

  9. 9.

    Report on the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters by Mr. P. Jenard [1979] C 59/1, 15.

  10. 10.

    Paragraph 2 states that, “for the purposes of Ireland, Cyprus and the United Kingdom, ‘statutory seat’ means the registered office or, where there is no such office anywhere, the place of incorporation or, where there is no such place anywhere, the place under the law of which the formation took place”.

  11. 11.

    Case 38/81 Effer SpA v Hans-Joachim Kantner [1981] ECR 825 [7].

  12. 12.

    C-34/82 Peteres v ZNAV [1983] ECR 987; C-26/91, Jakob Handte v TMCS [1992] ECR I-3967; C-334/00 Tacconi v HWS [2002] ECR I-7357 [23]. See also Case C-196/15, Granarolo SpA v Ambrosi Emmi France SA [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:559 [25-26] where the Court gave criteria to establish whether an action for damages founded on an abrupt termination of a long-standing business relationship may be considered as contractual.

  13. 13.

    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’ […]).

  14. 14.

    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).

  15. 15.

    Although Austrian law refers to the ‘reasonable consumer’, who is generally interested in receiving and processing information and generally smart enough to consider these information before making a decision, the requirements are rather low: the leeway within which the entrepreneur has to pay apparently ends only at notifications, leaving no doubt that the ‘winner’ is to be determined otherwise. Average attention and simple efforts to capture the information of the entrepreneur are sufficient to take the promise in the letter literally; see OGH 1 Ob 303/02v (Austrian Supreme Court) [2003] EvBl 2003, 464. The reason for such an imminent limitation of contractual freedom is the idea of substantial fairness and, on the other hand, considerations rooted in competition law.

  16. 16.

    Case C-180/06 Ilsinger v Dreschers [2009] I-3961.

  17. 17.

    Paragraph 54.

  18. 18.

    Paragraph 57.

  19. 19.

    Briggs 2014, p. 265.

  20. 20.

    Case C-26/91, Jakob Handte & Co. GmbH v Traitements Mécano-chimiques [1992] ECR I-3967.

  21. 21.

    Paragraph 19.

  22. 22.

    Case C-51/97 Réunion européenne SA and Others v Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV [1998] ECR I-6511 (claim for compensation by the consignee or insurer of the goods).

  23. 23.

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

  24. 24.

    Pertegás 2004, p. 179.

  25. 25.

    For third party effects of the assignment of a claim, see Case C-548/18, BGL BNP Paribas SA [2019] ECLI:EU:C:2019:848. For consumer representative actions, see under 3.5.4. For assignment of consumer claims under the Brussels I Regulation, see under 8.5.2. For a subrogated employer, see C-340/16 Kabeg [2017] ECLI:EU:C:2017:576 (statutory assignee can directly act against the insurer of a vehicle involved in an accident).

  26. 26.

    Crawford and Carruthers 2014, p. 9 (considering that “it would seem perverse for a judge vested with special jurisdiction in contract under Article 7.1.b to conclude for choice of law purposes under Article 9.3 of Rome I, that ‘the law of the country where the obligations arising out of the contract have to be or have been performed’ was other than the place of delivery of goods, or provision of services, as appropriate”).

  27. 27.

    Lein 2008, pp. 194–195.

  28. 28.

    Briggs 2014, p. 262, para 4.233.

  29. 29.

    Case C-38/81 Effer SpA v Hans-Joachim Kantner [1981] ECR 825 [7].

  30. 30.

    Briggs 2014, p. 262, para 4.243.

  31. 31.

    Case C-12/76 [1976] ECR 1473—Industrie Tessili Italiana Como v Dunlop AG.

  32. 32.

    Council Regulation (EC) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters COM(1999) 348 final, 14.

  33. 33.

    Briggs 2014, p. 262, para 4.245.

  34. 34.

    Case C-533/07 Falco Privatstiftung and Rabitsch [2009] ECR I-3327 [54].

  35. 35.

    Case C-381/08, Car Trim GmbH v KeySafety Systems Srl [2010] ECR I-1255 [33].

  36. 36.

    Id. [60-61].

  37. 37.

    Case C-87/10 [2011] ECR I-4978 [26]; on the delivery in several places, see Briggs 2014, p. 270, para 4.249.

  38. 38.

    Case C-64/17 Saey Home & Garden NV/SA [2018] ECLI:EU:C:2018:173 [44].

  39. 39.

    Joint Cases C-585/08 Peter Pammer v Reederei Karl Schlüter GmbH & Co. KG and C-144/09 Hotel Alpenhof Gesmbh v Oliver Hellerand [2010] I-12527.

  40. 40.

    C-190/11 Mühlleitner v Yusufi [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:542.

  41. 41.

    Case C-218/12 [2014] EU:C:2013:666.

  42. 42.

    COM(1999) 348 final.

References

  • Baetge D (1994) Der gewöhnliche Aufenthalt im Internationalen Privatrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford EB, Carruthers JM (2014) Connection and Coherence between and among European Instruments in the Private International Law of Obligations. ICLQ 41:1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruger T (2008) Civil Jurisdiction Rules of the EU and their Impact on Third States. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Pertegás M (2004) The notion of contractual obligation in Brussels I and Rome I. In: Meeusen J and others (eds) Enforcement of International Contracts in the European Union. Intersentia Publishers, Antwerp, pp 175–190

    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). Selected Concepts. 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_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-367-2_4

  • 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