Brussels 1A Flashcards
Gasser
Principle of mutual trust. Once an EU court is seized, you must wait its ruling. Even if the court seized is notoriously slow.
Turner
Anti-suit injunctions go against the principle of mutual trust and goes against the “effet utile” of EU law!
Note that mutual trust only applies between member states
Owusu
Forum non conveniens.
Fact that there are non elements pointing to non-member state and a national of a member state is sufficient for there to be an international element
Lindner
If all elements point to one member state but the defendant is from another member state -> international element
Eurocontrol
The need for an autonomous interpretation of ‘civil and commercial’. Seems to say: when the public authority is in the exercise of its powers.
Fahnebrock
If the actions of a public authority have direct and immediate effect -> acta iure imperii
Koen
Look at the context, so when the case is about something relating to the national sovereignty it’s probably acta iure imperii
Rich
arbitration exception, look at subject-matter to decide whether it falls under the exception
Van Uden
only matters ancillary to the arbitration fall under the exception. Matters that are parallel not!
Dinant bar
A part from a case can be civil and commercial whilst another part isn’t.
Reichtert
About exclusive jurisdiction: rightsin rem also include the additional rights that allow to protect your right in rem. In this case ‘actio pauliana’
Webb v Webb
rights in rem must be the principle object
Gaillard
Rights in rem have effect erga omnes
Weber v weber
Right of pre-emption that is noted in the registry and thus has effect erga omnes is a right in rem
Hacker
Contracts that involve multiple services besides the tenancy meant in art 24, cannot use art 24
Klein v Rhodos management
more complex deals than tenancies, like time-sharing agreements are not covered by the tenancy rule
BVG
The defense stating that someone did not have the competence to agree to a contract, does not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction rule of art 24. This would allow defendants to choose jurisdiction based on whether or not they call in this defense…
GATT v LUK
About IPR rights, even if the defense calls the validity of IPR rights into question, art 24 will still be applicable…
Elefanten Schuh
There is no voluntary appearance when the party appears to challenge jurisdiction, but doesn’t do that in his first argument.
Gruber
Austrian farmer with his tiles.
Consumer has to prove that the other party should have been aware of his capacity as consumer.
+ for mixed purpose contracts the professional aspect must be neglectable
Schrems
Consumer contracts: qualification is dynamic. A consumer contract can lose that qualification, however a non-consumer contract probably cannot become a consumer contract.
Ryanair v Delayfix
Strong seperation between qualification of consumer and EU consumer law
