The Brussels I Regulation Jurisdiction in matters of insurance, consumers contracts and individual contracts of employment

The Brussels I Regulation Jurisdiction in chosen matters The articles 8-21 of the Regulation set down special rules for jurisdiction in chosen matters – insurance, consumer contracts and individual contracts of employment. The reason for such provisions – protection of the „typically“ weaker party.

The Brussels I Regulation Jurisdiction in the matters relating to insurance Articles 8-14 of the Regulation. The weaker party shall be either the policyholder, either the insured person or the one who benefits from the insurance contracts (beneficiary). The basic rule for determination of the jurisdiction in these matters – article 9 of the Regulation:

The Brussels I Regulation Jurisdiction in the matters relating to insurance – prorogation agreement The prorogation agreement according to conditions set by the article 23 is not allowed contrary the provisions of the section, but there is special provision – article 13.

The Brussels I Regulation Jurisdiction over consumer contracts Articles of the Regulation The weaker party – the consumer. The contracts for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside of his trade or profession.

The Brussels I Regulation Jurisdiction over consumer contracts According to article 15 para 1 letter a – sale of goods on instalment credit: ECJ Case 150/77 Bertrand v. Paul Ott

The Brussels I Regulation Jurisdiction over consumer contracts The regulation of the consumer contracts is not satisfactory – article 15 para 1 letter c) – is focussed only on „passive consumer“ – the one who buys only in the Member state, where he is domiciled. Does not apply to contracts of transport, unless they are combined with accommodation.

The Brussels I Regulation Jurisdiction over consumer contracts The basic rule of the jurisdiction – article 16. A consumer may bring proceedings against the other party to a contract either in courts of the Member state in which that party is domiciled of in the courts for the place where consumer is domiciled. The consumer may be sued only in the place, where he is domiciled.

The Brussels I Regulation Jurisdiction over consumer contracts – prorogation agreement The application of the article 23 contrary the provisions of this section is not allowed, however the article 17 allows prorogation agreement over consumer contracts with certain conditions.

The Brussels I Regulation Jurisdiction over consumer contracts A lot of decisions of EC courts in this matter, e.g.: C-464/01 Johann Gruber v. Bay Wa AG Bingo decisions 1) Decision Gabriel C 96/00 – 2) Verand GmbH C 27/02 – Missis Engler

The Brussels I Regulation Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment Articles The weaker party is employee.

The Brussels I Regulation Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment – prorogation agreement The application of the article 23 contrary the provisions of this section is not allowed, however the article 21 allows prorogation agreement individual contracts of employment, in certain situations.

Brussels I Regulation Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment Decision Petrus Rutten v. Cross Medical Ltd. C 383/95 Decisions - 555/03 –Magali Warbecq v Ryanair Ltd. 437/00 - Giulia Pugliese v Finmeccanica SpA, Betriebsteil Alenia Aerospazio – two employers.

The Brussels I Regulation The recognition and enforcement of judgments

The Brussels I Regulation The enforcement and recognition of judgments Two systems of enforcement of a judgement of one Member state in another Member state: 1. The Brussels I Regulation 2. The EEO Regulation (European enforcement order for uncontested claims)

The Brussels I Regulation The enforcement and recognition of judgments Simpler rules than the rules about the jurisdiction. Chapter III of the Regulation – articles Basic aim – free movement of judgments Interpretation – Court of justice

The Brussels I Regulation The enforcement and recognition of judgments The procedure of recognition and enforcement – 3 phases: 1. Recognition 2. Declaration of enforceability of judgment 3. Enforcement of judgment The notion „judgment“ (article 32 of the Regulation): „any judgment given by a court or tribunal of a Member state, whatever the judgment may be called“

The Brussels I Regulation The recognition of judgments The principle of automatic recognition of judgments – no special procedure, no special decision is required. No review of the substance of the judgment is allowed.

The Brussels I Regulation The enforcement of judgments Article 38 of the Regulation – a judgment of one Member state may be enforced in another Member state after it has been declared enforceable (exequatur proceeding). Application for the declaration of enforceability is required. Application shall be submitted to courts in Annex II of the Regulation.

The Brussels I Regulation The enforcement of judgments Strictly formal procedure: If the conditions required (copy of decision + certificate according to articles 54-58) are fulfilled, the court issues decision of enforceability immediately without any review. The defendant does not know about the application in that phase, the delivered decision is serviced to him (then only he acquires information about the procedure).

The Brussels I Regulation The enforcement of judgments Against the decision about enforceability – an appeal is permissible –to the courts in Annex III The term is one month (if the defendant is domiciled in other member state, than where the decision was issued – two months). Against the decision of appeal – a remedy is permissible – regulated by national law – annex IV.

The Brussels I Regulation The enforcement of judgments The enforcement of the judgment which has be declared enforceable – regulated by the national law of the state. The application for the enforcement can be raised together with the application for the declaration of the enforceability. However, according to the possibility of raising an appeal – the decision allowing the enforcement can not come into legal force earlier than the decision about the enforceability.