Advertisement

System and Scope

  • Christoph Schmon
Chapter
  • 18 Downloads
Part of the Short Studies in Private International Law book series (SSIL)

Abstract

The Brussels I Recast and the Rome I Regulations show certain systematic commonalities, such as the idea of proximity to the dispute or legal relationship or that they set out a rule-exception relation between general and special rules. Leaving this aside, there are many infrastructure differences. The Brussels I Recast Regulation is driven by the goal of providing access to the courts of the EU Member State where the defendant is domiciled. Compensation for this jurisdictional preference is provided by special grounds for jurisdiction that focus on the subject-matter in dispute. The Rome I Regulation, by contrast, cannot be concerned with such jurisdictional thoughts. Its general rules do not generally protect one party to the contract and its formula gives a strong priority to party autonomy. There is thus no parallel feature to ‘general jurisdiction’ in conflict of laws, as a default rule would thwart its idea of qualification. In turn, the tertium non est datur logic of Rome I and II has no equivalent in the Brussels I Regulation, which internally draws the demarcation line between contractual and non-contractual obligations.

Keywords

Brussels I Recast Regulation Rome I Regulation Hierarchy Rule-Exception Relation Favor Defensoris Contractual Matters Party Interests Tessili Case 

References

  1. Basedow J (2001) Die Auslegung von EG-Verordnungen. In: Basedow J et al. (eds) Aufbruch nach Europa: 75 Jahre Max-Planck-Institut für Privatrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 583–594Google Scholar
  2. Briggs A (2014) Private International Law in English Courts. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Buchner B (1998) Kläger- und Beklagtenschutz im Recht der internationalen Zuständigkeit: Lösungsansätze für eine zukünftige Gerichtsstands- und Vollstreckungskonvention. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  4. Bydlinski F (1991) Methodenlehre. Springer, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  5. Crawford EB, Carruthers JM (2014) Connection and Coherence between and among European Instruments in the Private International Law of Obligations. ICLQ 64:1–29Google Scholar
  6. Freitag R (2010) Rom I, Rom II – tertium est datur im Kollisionsrecht der Schuldverhältnisse – Anmerkungen zum sachlichen Anwendungsbereich der Verordnungen Rom I und Rom I. In: Bernreuther J et al (eds) Festschrift für Ulrich Spellenberg zum 70. Geburtstag. Sellier, Munich, pp 169–176Google Scholar
  7. Geimer R (1983) Band I/1. In: Geimer R, Schütze RA (eds) Internationale Urteilsanerkennung. Beck, Munich, § 83 II 2Google Scholar
  8. Illmer M (2015) Scope and Definitions. In: Dickinson A, Lein E (eds) The Brussels I Regulation Recast. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 55–92Google Scholar
  9. Kramer EA (2010) Juristische Methodenlehre. Beck, MunichGoogle Scholar
  10. Larenz K (1991) Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. Mankowski P (2007) Art 5. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Brussels I Regulation: European Commentaries on Private International Law. Sellier, European Law Publishers, Germany, pp 77–236Google Scholar
  12. Micklitz H, Reich N (2015) Das IPR der Verbraucherverbandsklage gegen missbräuchliche AGB. EWS 4:181–193Google Scholar
  13. Pfeiffer T (1995) Internationale Zuständigkeit und prozessuale Gerechtigkeit: Die internationale Zuständigkeit im Zivilprozess zwischen effektivem Rechtsschutz und nationaler Zuständigkeitspolitik. Klostermann, Frankfurt/MainGoogle Scholar
  14. Plender R, Wilderspin M (2009) The European Private International Law of Obligations, 3rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Schack H (2002) Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht, 3rd edn. Beck, MunichGoogle Scholar
  16. Schwartze A (2015) Die Rechtsvergleichung. In: Riesenhuber K (ed) Europäische Methodenlehre: Handbuch für Ausbildung und Praxis, 3rd edn. Beck, Berlin, pp 53–69Google Scholar
  17. Stone P (2010) EU Private International Law, 2nd edn. Elgar European Law, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  18. Vlas P (2007) Arts 2-4. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Brussels I Regulation: European Commentaries on Private International Law. Sellier European Law Publishers, Munich, pp 69–77Google Scholar
  19. Von Mehren AT (2002) Theory and Practice of Adjudicatory Authority in Private International Law: General Course of Private International Law. 295 Recueil Des Cours, pp 9–34Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the author  2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Schmon
    • 1
  1. 1.NottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations