- 377 Downloads
Various rules in the Brussels I-bis Regulation aim to prevent parallel proceedings and—in the end—conflicting judgments. This is already done in an early stage, at the moment a certain court needs to decide whether it has jurisdiction (the Brussels I-bis Regulation provides courts with a ground to refuse jurisdiction in case another court for example already has jurisdiction). The idea of collective redress mechanisms is that a bundle of comparable matters are resolved in a single procedure. Given the fact that under some proceedings (opt-in procedures), not all parties to a mass dispute will be a party to the collective redress procedure, in what way can the rules in the Brussels I-bis Regulation in relation to parallel procedures be applied.
KeywordsParallel procedures Lis pendens Related actions Conflicting judgments
- Briggs A (2009) Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments. Informa Law, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Danov M (2011) Jurisdiction and judgments in relation to EU competition law claims. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Magnus U et al (2016) ‘Brussels I Regulation’. Sellier, MunichGoogle Scholar
- Stefanelli J (2012) ‘Parallel litigation and cross-border collective actions under the Brussels I-bis framework: lessons from abroad’. In: Fairgrieve D, Lein E (eds) Extraterritoriality and collective redress. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Tang S (2011) ‘Consumer collective redress’. Journal of Private International Law 1Google Scholar