Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Provisional and Protective Measures in the European Civil Procedure of the Brussels I System

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Brussels Ibis Regulation

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

  • 1067 Accesses

Abstract

This article deals with the rules governing the territorial adjudication of interim relief. Firstly, it addresses how the rules introduced already in the 1968 Brussels Convention and taken over in the Brussels I Regulation have been explained and enriched by the ECJ/CJEU. Thereafter, the major changes introduced in the Brussels Ibis Regulation are discussed in connection with the regime of interim relief measures conceived for other relevant EU legal instruments, as the European Account Preservation Order.

The title of this paper is a wink of the eye towards Luigi Mari, whose enlightened lessons shaped my understanding of the system’s philosophy since the earliest years of my studies in Urbino (see Mari 1999). By the expression Brussels I system I refer to all the pieces of legislation generated by the 1968 Brussels Convention (Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Consolidated version OJ C 097, 11/04/1983, pp. 2–24), namely: the 1988 Lugano Convention (Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters of 16 September 1988, OJ L 319, 25/11/1988, pp. 9–48), the Brussels I Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 012, 16/01/2001, pp. 1–23), the 2007 Lugano Convention (Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters of 30 October 2007 and its protocols—Protocol 1 on certain questions of jurisdiction, procedure and enforcement—Protocol 2 on the uniform interpretation of the Convention and on the Standing Committee, OJ L 339, 21/12/2007, pp. 3–41) and the Recast (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, OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, pp. 1–32; hereinafter Brussels Ibis Regulation).

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 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
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.

    On the origin and the characteristics of the Brussels Convention see Mari 1999, 1–67.

  2. 2.

    For a synoptic view refer to Ancel et al. (2015), Lynxlex: From Brussels to Lugano, a panoramic table, http://www.lynxlex.com last accessed on 4.10.2016.

  3. 3.

    Bogdan 2012, p. 125 ff., Sandrini 2012, 273 ff.

  4. 4.

    Garcimartín 2014/2015, pp. 57–58.

  5. 5.

    Ibidem and Honorati 2012, p. 543 ff. and Schlosser 2007, p. 288 ff., 312 ff. In contrast, Nioche 2012, p. 301 argues that forum shopping of interim relief measures may virtually generate parallel proceedings resulting in unmanageable situations, even within the Brussels I system.

  6. 6.

    This effort is not recognised by Nioche 2012, p. 18 ff. who excludes the existence of an autonomous notion of provisional and protective measures. The author suggests to simply characterise provisional and protective measures through the use of a negative definition that would include all measures not covered by res judicata. For a first comprehensive definition of provisional measures in light of ECJ case law (albeit until 1999) see Mari 1999, pp. 714–723 and Kaye 1999, pp. 3022–3062.

  7. 7.

    See Regulation (EU) No. 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 189, 27.6.2014, p. 59 ff.

  8. 8.

    Article 35 Brussels Ibis Regulation: einstweilige Maßnahmen einschließlich Sicherungsmaßnahmen while Article 31 Brussels I Regulation reads einstweilige Maßnahmen einschließlich solcher, die auf eine Sicherung gerichtet sind.

  9. 9.

    In French, the need to specify that provisional measures include protective ones does not seem to be felt: the wording is mesures provisoires ou conservatoires. See for example recital 33 of the Recast. In Italian the title of section 10 of the original Brussels I Regulation reads: “Provvedimenti provvisori e cautelari” whereas Article 31 reads: Provvedimenti provvisori o cautelari, the same wording may be found in section 10 and Article 35 of the Recast. All emphasis added.

  10. 10.

    Case C-261/90—Mario Reichert, Hans-Heinz Reichert and Ingeborg Kockler v Dresdner Bank AG., ECLI:EU:C:1992:149 following a previous decision in the same instance (Case C-115/88—Mario P.A. Reichert and others v Dresdner Bank—ECLI:EU:C:1990:3, where the pauliana had been (wrongly) characterised by the plaintiff as a matter relating to rights in rem in immovable property).

  11. 11.

    Ankum 1962, offers an in-depth analysis of Roman and medieval sources of the pauliana.

  12. 12.

    For a comparative analysis, Pretelli 2010, pp. 55–117 in Italian and, for a synthetic overview in English, Pretelli 2011, pp. 589–600.

  13. 13.

    Namely, the bank tried a European characterization of the pauliana as an action in matters of: real estate for the purposes of Article 16-1 Brussels Convention; torts for Article 5-3 Brussels Convention; provisional and protective measures in order to make use of Article 24 Brussels Convention; and the enforcement of judgments for Article 16-5 Brussels Convention. It is still uncertain if the bank would have found the alternative sought to the forum rei in the forum contractus as later suggested by an Italian judgment of the Corte di cassazione: Pretelli 2004, p. 612 ff.

  14. 14.

    In many legal systems it is even acknowledged that the decision has a constitutive character and may even be compared, to a certain extent, to a constructive trust. See Pretelli 2011, pp. 599–600.

  15. 15.

    Case 143/78—Jacques de Cavel v Louise de Cavel, ECLI:EU:C:1979:83 and Case 120/79—Louise de Cavel v Jacques de Cavel, ECLI:EU:C:1980:70.

  16. 16.

    C-261/90—Reichert and Kockler (note 10), pt. 34.

  17. 17.

    Kaye 1999, p. 3026, see also his comments on the following rulings: Case C-261/90—Mario Reichert (supra note 9); Banque Cantonale Vaudoise v Waterlily Maritime Inc. [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 347 (UK); Re an Italian Cargo of Adultered Wine [1991] I.L.Pr. 473 (Germany); Oblique Financial Services Ltd. v The Promise Production Co. Ltd. [1994] I.L.R.M. 74 (Ireland).

  18. 18.

    Case C-104/03, St. Paul Dairy Industries NV v Unibel Exser BVBA, ECLI:EU:C:2005:255.

  19. 19.

    Ibidem. See point 7 of the decision: “With regard to the substance of the dispute between Unibel and St. Paul Dairy, the order for reference states that it is common ground that both parties are established in Belgium, the legal relationship at issue in the main proceedings is governed by Belgian law, the court having jurisdiction to hear the matter is the Belgian court and no case on the same subject has been brought in the Netherlands or in Belgium”.

  20. 20.

    The ECJ explicitly referred to its previous statements in pt. 34 of Reichert and Kockler (note 10), and pt. 37 of Van Uden (note 29).

  21. 21.

    E multis see Mari 1999, p. 729 on the acquis Mietz with regard to Article 24 Brussels Convention: “Posto dunque che il rifiuto dell’exequatur è diretto a colpire un provvedimento abnorme sotto il profilo della competenza […], i provvedimenti [cautelari] sono conformi all’Article 24—vale a dire legittimamente emanabili sul base del ricorso al diritto nazionale—solo se possono essere attuati senza bisogno dell’exequatur in un altro Stato contraente”.

  22. 22.

    Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ L 157, 30.4.2004) in the text resulting from the subsequent Corrigendum published in the OJ L 195, 2.6.2004, pp. 16–25.

  23. 23.

    Ibidem, Article 6, emphasis added. See Stamatoudi 2014, pp. 573 ff.

  24. 24.

    On recognition and enforcement of the English worldwide freezing order in the framework of the recast see van Rest 2014, p. 351 ff. See Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd and others [2014] EWHC 3704 (Comm) with reference, inter alia, to Credit Suisse Fides Trust SA v Cuoghi [1997] 3 All ER 724, at 730, and [1998] QB 818 at 827 suggesting that “protective measures should be granted by those courts best able to make their orders effective. In relation to orders taking direct effect against the assets, this means the courts of the state where the assets are located; and in relation to orders in personam, including orders for disclosure, this means the courts of the state where the person enjoined resides”.

  25. 25.

    Ibidem, emphasis added.

  26. 26.

    Regulation (EU) No. 655/2014 (note 7).

  27. 27.

    A special regime governs EAPOs issued for the recovery of consumers’ debts.

  28. 28.

    Case C-99/96 Hans-Hermann Mietz v Intership Yachting Sneek BV, ECLI:EU:C:1999:202.

  29. 29.

    Case C-391/95 Van Uden Maritime v Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line and Others, ECLI:EU:C:1998:543.

  30. 30.

    The reference is to the second Reichert case (note 10) at pt. 9, quoted supra section 2.1.1.1.

  31. 31.

    Cf. Recital 13 of Regulation (EU) No. 655/2014 (note 7): “proceedings on the substance of the matter should cover any proceedings aimed at obtaining an enforceable title on the underlying claim including, for instance, summary proceedings concerning orders to pay and proceedings such as the French procédure de référé.” Here, the references to national procedures seems to have been added as mere examples, rather than as a tentative sketch of a primitive taxonomy.

  32. 32.

    Supra (note 28).

  33. 33.

    Supra (note 29).

  34. 34.

    Mari 1999, pp. 713–740. See, however, Dickinson 2010, pp. 557–558, identifying the courts better placed to grant specific interim relief according to the measure’s characteristics, and Garcimartín 2014/2015, p. 66 on interim relief in personam.

  35. 35.

    Domej 2014, p. 543, Garcimartín 2014/2015, p. 59, Heinze 2011, p. 602, Honorati 2012, p. 526.

  36. 36.

    See C-39/02, Maersk Olie, pt. 46: “As is pointed out in the Report on the Brussels Convention (OJ 1979 C 59, p. 71, point 184), Article 25 of that Convention is not limited to decisions which terminate a dispute in whole or in part, but also applies to provisional or interlocutory decisions.”

  37. 37.

    See C-80/00 Italian Leather SpA—WECO Polstermöbel GmbH & Co., ECLI:EU:C:2002:342 whose operative part, at pt. 1, contains the following decisions: “On a proper construction of Article 27(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 […] a foreign decision on interim measures ordering an obligor not to carry out certain acts is irreconcilable with a decision on interim measures refusing to grant such an order in a dispute between the same parties in the State where recognition is sought”. See Hess 2008, p 518 ff.

  38. 38.

    Supra (note 29).

  39. 39.

    On the concept of exclusive jurisdiction in the Brussels I system see Mari and Pretelli 2013/2014, p. 218.

  40. 40.

    Dickinson 2010, p. 546, Garcimartín 2014/2015, p. 61, Heinze 2011, p. 608, Layton and Mercer 2004, para 23.019, Leible 2010, Article 31, No. 18. Note that Honorati 2012, p. 539, contends that the judge may only take ex ante measures under Article 35 Brussels Ibis Regulation.

  41. 41.

    Article 33 reads: “Remedies of the debtor against the Preservation Order—1. Upon application by the debtor to the competent court of the Member State of origin, the Preservation Order shall be revoked or, where applicable, modified on the ground that: (a) the conditions or requirements set out in this Regulation were not met; […]”.

  42. 42.

    Garcimartín 2014/2015, p. 62.

  43. 43.

    Case 125/79 Bernard Denilauler—SNC Couchet Frères, ECLI:EU:C:1980:130, see infra at 3.2.2.

  44. 44.

    Supra (note 43).

  45. 45.

    See the operative part of Denilauler (note 43).

  46. 46.

    Case C-474/93 Hengst Import BV—Anna Maria Campese, ECLI:EU:C:1995:243 at pt. 16 “it must first be noted that the provisions of the Convention as a whole, both in Title II on jurisdiction and in Title III on recognition and enforcement, manifest an intention to ensure that, within the scope of the objectives of the Convention, proceedings culminating in judicial decisions are conducted in such a way that the rights of the defence are observed”. The case concerned the enforcement in the Netherlands of the Italian Decreto Ingiuntivo, an ex parte measure that is served on the defendant in order to allow him or her to challenge it in order to avoid subsequent imminent enforcement.

  47. 47.

    Garcimartín 2014/2015, p. 68, von Hein 2013, p. 108 and Domej 2014, p. 546.

  48. 48.

    Case C-302/13 flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines AS v Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga VAS and Air Baltic Corporation AS, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2319, pt. 57: “the provisional and protective measures at issue in the main proceedings do not consist in the payment of a sum but simply in the monitoring of the assets of the defendants in the main proceedings”.

References

  • Ankum JA (1962) De geschiedenis der “actio pauliana” (L’histoire de l’action paulienne). Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan M (2012) The proposed recast of rules on provisional measures under the Brussels I regulation. In: Lein E (ed) The Brussels I review proposal uncovered. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, pp 129–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson A (2010) Provisional Measures in the Brussels I Review: Disturbing the Status Quo? J Private Int Law:519–542

    Google Scholar 

  • Domej T (2014) Die Neufassung der EuGVVO, Quantensprünge im europäischen Zivilprozessrecht. Rabel J Comp Int Private Law 78(3):508–550

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcimartín F (2014/2015) Provisional and Protective Measures in the Brussels I Regulation recast. Yearb Private Int Law XVI:57–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinze C (2011) Choice of court agreements, coordination of proceedings and provisional measures in the reform of the Brussels I regulation. Rabel J Comp Int Private Law 75(3):581–618

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess B (2008) In: Hess B, Pfeiffer Th, Schlosser P (eds) The Brussels I Regulation 44/2001. Application and Enforcement in the EU, Beck, Munich, pp 518–537

    Google Scholar 

  • Honorati C (2012) Provisional measures and the recast of Brussels I regulation: a missed opportunity for a better ruling. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 3:525–544

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye P (1999) Law of the European Judgments Convention. Barry Rose Law Publishers Ltd., Little London, vol. IV

    Google Scholar 

  • Layton A, Mercer H (2004) European Civil Practice, 2nd ed. Sweet & Maxwell, para 23–001

    Google Scholar 

  • Leible S (2010) in Rauscher Th (ed.) Europäisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht EuZPR/EuIPR, Sellier: Article 31 para 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Mari L (1999) Il diritto processuale civile della Convenzione di Bruxelles. Il Sistema della Competenza, Padova Cedam

    Google Scholar 

  • Mari L, Pretelli I (2013/2014) Possibility and Terms for Applying the Brussels I Regulation (Recast) to Extra-EU Disputes. Yearb Private Int Law XV:211–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Nioche M (2012) La décision provisoire en droit international privé européen. Bruylant, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretelli I (2004) Arrêt de la Cour de cassation d’Italie, (Section réunies) du 7 mai 2003 (trad. fr.) et note. Revue critique de droit international privé (vol.):612–632

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretelli I (2010) Garanzie del credito e conflitti di leggi. Editoriale Scientifica, Naples

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretelli I (2011) Cross-border Credit Protection against Fraudulent Transfers of Assets. Yearb Private Int Law XIII:589–640

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandrini L (2012) Coordination of substantive and interim proceedings. In: Pocar F, Viarengo I, Villata F (eds) Recasting Brussels I. CEDAM, Padova, pp 273–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamatoudi I (2014) In: Stamatoudi I, Torremans P (eds) EU Copyright Law: A Commentary, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hein J (2013) Die Neufassung der EuGVVO, RIW:97–111

    Google Scholar 

  • van Rest C (2014) Erkenning en tenuitvoerlegging van (ex parte) voorlopige en bewarende maatregelen op grond van de EEX-Verordening en de Herschikking van de EEX-Verordening. Een analyse aan de hand van de Engelse Freezing Order, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 2: 351–356

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Ilaria Pretelli

Authors
  1. Ilaria Pretelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ilaria Pretelli .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Research Department, T.M.C. Asser Institute , The Hague, The Netherlands

    Vesna Lazić

  2. Private International Law, T.M.C. Asser Instituut , The Hague, The Netherlands

    Steven Stuij

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pretelli, I. (2017). Provisional and Protective Measures in the European Civil Procedure of the Brussels I System. In: Lazić, V., Stuij, S. (eds) Brussels Ibis Regulation. Short Studies in Private International Law . T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-147-0_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-147-0_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-146-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-147-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation