Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Brussels I Regulation of 2001 was the primary piece of legislation in the Brussels framework from 2002 until January 2015. It substantially replaced the 1968 Brussels Convention, and applied to all EU member states excluding Denmark, which has a full opt-out from implementing regulations under the area of freedom, security and justice .
The original Brussels Regulation (44/2001) is, with regard to jurisdiction rules, very similar to the 2007 Lugano Convention (which applies when the dispute has links to more than one party the convention), containing the same provisions with the same numbering. Numbering and certain substantial issues are different in the 2012 recast version ...
Allianz SpA v West Tankers, case C-185/07, concerned Regulation 44/2001 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Anti-suit injunctions restraining a party from commencing or continuing processes in the court of a Brussels Regulation member state cannot be granted in the court of another member state because this would be ...
The decision deals with the Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (Brussels I) and which court of justice is competent. Due to the principle of legal certainty in the EU, the Rome I, Rome II, and Brussels I regulations are uniformly interpreted. That means, when an activity is "directed" into another country, the consumer protection articles of Rome I and ...
A further significant amendment was made to the Act by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1991 which gave Courts power under the Lugano convention, and later by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Order 2001 which gave Courts jurisdiction under Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (commonly known as the Judgments Regulation or the Brussels ...
"The Perils of Parallel Proceedings". Nov 2001–Jan 2002. Dispute Resolution Journal. Blanke, G. (2004) "The Turning Tides of Turner". October BLR pp. 261–270. Eisengraeber, Julia. (2004). "Lis alibi pendens under the Brussels I Regulation – How to minimise "Torpedo Litigation" and other unwanted effects of the "first-come, first-served ...
Gasser v MISAT (C–116/02) was a decision of the European Court of Justice regarding the interpretation of the Brussels convention of 1968 ruling that a court chosen in a choice of court agreement should stay its proceedings - as any other court chosen second within the Brussels regime - until the court first seized had declared it did not have jurisdiction.
The Regulation emphasises that the rules should be applied with the purpose of protecting the worker. [34] It is also necessary that a court has jurisdiction to hear a claim. Under the Brussels I Regulation article 19, [35] this requires the worker habitually works in the place where the claim is brought, or is engaged there.