Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

PIL > Brussels Ia > Flashcards

Brussels Ia Flashcards

1
Q

Gasser

A
  • torpedo
  • mutual trust ensures that MS may not circumvent the lis alibi pendens rule (even in cases of extreme backlog)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Turner

A

anti-suit injunctions undermine the mutual trust

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Owusu

A
  1. predictability = abstract, predictable exercise
    forum non conveniens is unpredictable
  2. the involvement of a MS is enough to trigger BIa in an international context (even if the alternative is a non-EU court)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Lindner

A
  • the court of last domicile has jurisdiction (fair balance and legal certainty)
  • potentiality of another court in another MS to claim jurisdiction based on nationality is enough to trigger BIa
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Commerzbank

A
  • it’s sufficient that the international element only arises after the formation of the contract; thereby triggering BIa only after the formation
  • probably limited to protected categories only
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Inkreal + Vinyls Italia

A
  • there doesn’t have to be any actual connection with the jurisdiction in question
  • predictability + B2B context
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Gray v. Hurley

A

domicile defendant impossible to ID
1. Was there an international element to trigger BIa?
2. could they use anti-suit to prevent the defendant to sue in NZ?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Eurocontrol

A
  • autonomous interpretation of civil and commercial
  • certain types of judicial decisions must be regarded as excluded either by reason of legal relationships between parties or of the subject matter of the action
  • acta iure imperii = BIa doesn’t apply when a public authority acts within its exercise of powers
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Fahnenbrock

A

acta iure imperii needs direct and immediate effect

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Kuhn

A

when the public body is acting in a private capacity, the case can be civil and commercial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Steenbergen

A

it’s sufficient that the acta iure imperii only exists on paper to be not civil and commercial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Dinant

A

possible to split the litigation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Obala

A
  • preference for the legal relationship between parties
  • AG Bobek gives criteria
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

SKAT

A

was mostly about tort, not an exercise of public authority related to tax

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Eurelec Trading

A
  • authorities had a search and seize power that a competitor doesn’t have
  • you have to look at the powers in concreto with abstract criteria
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Movic

A

whether it is civil and commercial depends on the actual view by the authorities of their powers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Rina

A

if it doesn’t have any discretion, it’s civil and commercial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

BA v. SEPLA

A

HC: public law protected under TFEU
prof: money claim = civil and commercial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Rich

A

arbitration
- one should look at the subject matter of the dispute to decide whether or not it is about arbitration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Van Uden

A

arbitration
- arbitration clause
- interim measures are intended as measures of support for such proceedings, they don’t concern arbitration as such

provisional and protective measures (art 35)
- there needs to be a real connecting link between the subject matter of the measures and the territorial jurisdiction of the MS (doesn’t need to be territorial sensu stricto)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

West Tankers

A

arbitration
- if the procedure that relates to the arbitration doesn’t have arbitration itself as a subject –> matter DOES fall within the scope of BIa

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Prestige Steam-Ship

A

arbitration
- there is a scope for recognition and refusal
the CJEU brings excluded subject matter properly into BIa through Title III

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

J v. H Limited

A

arbitration
- a subject matter which is excluded from Title I and II (non-EU judgment) can nevertheless qualify under Title III

recognition and enforcement
- wide room of manoeuvre to refuse to recognise
- CJEU allows a non-EU judgment (which should be excluded) to become an art 53 kind of judgment capable of recognition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Webb v. Webb

A

exclusive jurisdiction (art 24.1)
- restrictive rights in rem
- look at object of proceedings
- in casu it was proper performance of a trust relationship, not rights in rem

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Reichert

A

exclusive jurisdiction (art 24.1)
- restrictive rights in rem
- strict scope of application art 24
- action in which a creditor under national law applies to have a donation of property set aside falls OUT of the scope

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Gaillard

A

exclusive jurisdiction (art 24.1)
- restrictive rights in rem
- an action for rescission of a contract for sale of land and consequential damages falls OUT of the scope

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Schmidt v. Schmidt

A

exclusive jurisdiction (art 24.1)
- art 8.4 claim joined with art 24.1 court
- voidance of the contract IS NOT a right in rem
- removal of the name out of the register IS a right in rem

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Ellmes Property Services

A

exclusive jurisdiction (art 24.1)
- rei sitae qualification subject to qualification under national law
- action by which co-owner prohibits another co-owner the change the usage of the property can fall under the scope if it has organised effect
- referring court needs to assess the lex loci rei sitae

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Weber v. Weber

A

exclusive jurisdiction (art 24.1)
- rei sitae qualification subject to qualification under national law
- whether or not a right of first refusal in co-ownership has mass effect needs to be determined in accordance with national law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Klein

A

exclusive jurisdiction (art 24.1)
- it has to be tenancy
- can’t be time-share
- there needs to be a direct link

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Hacker v. Euro-Relais

A

exclusive jurisdiction (art 24.1)
- it has to be tenancy
- can’t be whistles and bells contract
- if there are additional services, it’s not tenancies but complex travel arrangements –> falls OUT of the scope of art 24

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Roompot Services

A

exclusive jurisdiction (art 24.1)
- only for short-term non-professional lets
- you have to look at the entirety of the contract and the complexities of the applications and services

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Mozambique rule

A

exclusive jurisdiction (art 24.1)
- we shouldn’t touch cases when they’re concerned in the hardcore rights in immovable property

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

BVG

A

exclusive jurisdiction (art 24.2)
- restrictive validity of organ decision
- NOT an ultra vires issue

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

BSH Hausgeräte GmbH

A

exclusive jurisdiction (art 24.2)
- restrictive validity of organ decision
- narrow reading of 24(4)
- only the validity element moves to the court

  • reflexive effect
  • AG opined in favour of reflexive effect
  • art 4 doesn’t stand in the way of art 24 reflexive effect, despite art 24 not saying anything about it, nor BIa and despite lis pendens rules (art 33-34)
  • prof disagrees: specific narrow possibility of a stay in reflexive circumstances under art 33-34 would imply that includes a general reflexivity rule in art 24
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Koza v. Akcil

A

exclusive jurisdiction (art 24.2)
- restrictive validity of organ decision
- if you allow a judge to second-guess what the claim is about, you’re broadening art 24(4) too much

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Barclay Pharmaceuticals

A

exclusive jurisdiction (art 24.3)
- restrictive validity of entries in public registers
- English judgment which deals with real ownership of financial assets is NOT caught by art 24(3)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

GAT v. LUK

A

exclusive jurisdiction (art 24.4)
- restrictive registration/validity of registered IP rights
- if you claim the IP right doesn’t exist, it moves to art 24.2 = if the IP right doesn’t exist, the whole case vanishes
- crucial for relationship art 24.2-24.4 and reflexive effect

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Hanssen

A

exclusive jurisdiction (art 24.4)
- restrictive registration/validity of registered IP rights
- formal proprietor making a declaration that she has no entitlement to the mark and waives registration is NOT caught

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

DNI

A

exclusive jurisdiction (art 24.4)
- DNI NOT caught by art 24.4
- claimants may seek to circumvent art 24.4 by carving out validity claims
- denial of infringement often used to question the validity of patents

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

AS-Autoteile Service

A

exclusive jurisdiction (art 24.5)
- enforcement of judgments
- you can’t abuse art 24.5 to reopen litigation that led to the judgment in the other MS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

IRnova

A

exclusive jurisdiction (art 24.4)
- reflexive effect
- art 24.4 does not apply reflexively and stoemelings

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

ZX v. Ryanair

A

jurisdiction by appearance (art 26)
- it’s not because you answer to a clerk request that you are submitting to the court
- you can still contest jurisdiction, but you must do so at limine

branch jurisdiction (art 7.5)
- branch = centre of operations + has the appearance of permanency + management + materially equipped to negotiate business with third parties
- you need to have an establishment in the MS where the branch is located or a link related to the branch

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Ilsinger

A

consumer (art 17-19)
- there must be a contract
- reciprocity (active consumer)
- reciprocity is not required under art 7.1

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Bonnie Lackey

A

consumer (art 17-19)
- contract is concluded by a consumer
- a group can be a consumer = whole party

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Flowers

A

consumer (art 17-19)
- contract is concluded by a consumer
- to what degree could relatives of medical liability issue be seen as consumers?
- no CJEU authority

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Gruber

A

consumer (art 17-19)
- consumer contract
- restrictive approach consumer title
- dual use: consumer needs to show professional use is negligible

48
Q

Wurth Automotive

A

consumer (art 17-19)
- consumer contract
- pre-existing general knowledge of the consumer is irrelevant

49
Q

Petruchova

A

consumer (art 17-19)
- consumer contract
- pre-existing general knowledge of the consumer is irrelevant

50
Q

Reliantco

A

consumer (art 17-19)
- consumer contract
- pre-existing general knowledge of the consumer is irrelevant

special jurisdiction (art 7.1 and 7.2)
- applicable law also applies to culpa in contrahendo

51
Q

Schrems

A

consumer (art 17-19)
- consumer contract
- dynamic interpretation consumer title (at least from B2C to B2B)

52
Q

Ryanair v. DelayFix

A

consumer (art 17-19)
- consumer contract
- secondary EU consumer law does not impact BIa qualification

choice of court (art 25)
- substantive validity of choice of court (art 25) may be impacted by secondary EU consumer law
- EU-law sets down what a national consumer should look like
- exhaustive harmonisation

53
Q

Pillar Securitisation

A

consumer (art 17-19)
- consumer contract
- secondary EU consumer law does not impact BIa qualification
- substantive validity of choice of court (art 25) may be impacted by secondary EU consumer law

54
Q

Pammer Alpenhof

A

consumer (art 17-19)
- consumer contract
- directed activities directed at your state of domicile
- crucial criteria (non-exhaustive)

55
Q

Emrek

A

consumer (art 17-19)
- consumer contract
- directed activities
- consumer doesn’t have to show causal link (you don’t have to actually buy something as a result of the website)

56
Q

employment

A
  • durable relation between individual and company (Shenavai)
  • link between contract and place where activities are pursued (Shenavai)
  • relationship of subordination = supervision and instruction (Holterman)
  • services for and under the direction of another in return for renumeration (Holterman)
57
Q

Holterman

A

employment (art 20-23)
- independent interpretation
- subordination = supervision and instruction
- dual capacity: once you’re qualified as employee, you will be employee for the whole relationship for the purposes of BIa

58
Q

Markt24

A

employment (art 20-23)
- intentions of parties to establish employment is sufficient
- contract is relevant, not the actual exercise
- place where work hasn’t been carried out IF the rupture of the contract is NOT the fault of the employee (predictability)

59
Q

Noguiera and Osacar v. Ryanair

A

employment (art 20-23)
- contracts of service
- you cannot look at employer as main anker for deciding the place of employment under art 21
- position of employee is emphasised

60
Q

ROI Land Investments

A

employment (art 20-23)
- AG: anyone with direct/relevant interest in the correct execution = employer
- CJEU: in casu: no promissory note + issuer of the note was prior employer = employment contract

61
Q

Jamieson

A

employment (art 20-23)
- torpedo
- lis pendens rules have precedence over protected categories

62
Q

Kaifer Aislamientos

A

choice of court (art 25)
- consent needs to be clear and precise

63
Q

Etihad and Flother

A

choice of court (art 25)
- consent needs to be clear and precise
- this can be an issue with rapid to and fro of downstream subagreements

64
Q

boilerplate and midnight clauses

A

choice of court (art 25)
- don’t have precise language required
- boilerplate = recycle the same choice of court and law clauses in effort to save time and money
- midnight = produced at the eleventh hour

65
Q

Colzani

A

choice of court (art 25)
- formalisation of consent: writing
- parties should explicitly agree in GTC which must be clear and precise
- on the backside of the offer is written, but NOT clear and precise
- reasonable care: there needs to be made express reference to the GTC

66
Q

CarsontheWeb

A

choice of court (art 25)
- formalisation of consent: writing
- click-wrapping
- show that reasonable care person could be aware of GTC
- pop-ups need to be saved/printed = durably consultable and storable
- right e-mail footer, properly functioning link, protocols for proactive authentication

67
Q

Tilman and Unilever

A

choice of court (art 25)
- formalisation of consent: writing
- you must have drawn the attention of the other party to the GTC
- the clause needs to be durably consultable and durable
- you need to show the actual consent to the national court
- the fact that there is no click-wrap box is NOT conclusive

68
Q

Segoura

A

choice of court (art 25)
- formalisation of consent: established practice
- the fact that the buyer doesn’t specifically reject GTC does not suffice for there to be choice of court
- it can be established practice
- writing: it has to start with some written confirmation

69
Q

Refcomp

A

choice of court (art 25)
- privity of choice of court
- chain of contracts
- choice of court does not have privity, unless it’s established that third party had consented

70
Q

Coreck Maritime

A

choice of court (art 25)
- no privity of choice of court
- one exception: bills of lading: choice of court DOES pass on into the chain

71
Q

Apple Sales v. eBizzcuss

A

choice of court (art 25)
- abuse of dominant position (art 102 TFEU)
- the choice of court can extend to non-contractual obligations if the contract is so closely related to the conduct that you need to contractual terms to assess the non-contractual liability

72
Q

CDC

A

choice of court (art 25)
- cartel damage (art 101 TFEU)
- follow-on claim
- choice of court committed to by victims does NOT bind third parties UNLESS there is subrogation

forum delicti (art 7.2)
- locus delicti commissi = place of the conclusion of the cartel
- abuse/forum shopping

multiple parties (art 8.1)
- used anchor defendant
- withdrawing the action against the defendant is NOT abuse of art 8.1
- collusion between claimant and anchor to fulfil/prolong art 8.1 IS abuse

73
Q

Effer v. Kantner

A

forum contractus (art 7.1)
- applies even when the existence of a contract is in dispute

74
Q

Handte

A

forum contractus (art 7.1)
- wide definition of contract
- contractual obligation is freely pursued between parties

75
Q

Feniks

A

forum contractus (art 7.1)
- wide definition of contract
- the objective presence of a contract is enough for there to be a contractual relationship
- the cause of the action lies in the breach of the obligations toward the creditor to which the debtor agreed

76
Q

Reitbauer

A

forum contractus (art 7.1)
- wide definition of contract
- Feniks applies even when there is NO knowledge or suggestion of fraud –> there is still a contractual relationship

77
Q

flightright

A

forum contractus (art 7.1)
- wide definition of contract
- you have a contractual relationship even if you weren’t aware that a third party was carrying out a contract

78
Q

Sao Paulo Pannels

A

forum contractus (art 7.1)
- initial contract = anchor point for forum contractus
- if the initial contract doesn’t qualify as a contract –> looking over the fence

79
Q

De Bloos

A

forum contractus (art 7.1)
- where is place of performance?
- national courts ascertain place of performance (forum contractus) under the applicable law to the contract
- looking over the fence: 1) lex contractus 2) forum contractus in lex contractus?
- difficulties: cherry-picking and mosaic

80
Q

Tessili v. Dunlop

A

forum contractus (art 7.1)
- looking over the fence technique (= conflicts method)
- the judges will have to use their own rules on applicable law for contracts

81
Q

Corman-Collins

A

forum contractus (art 7.1)
- a selective distribution agreement = contract for provision of services
- all relations within the selective distribution agreement need to be litigated in the place where the services (should) have been delivered, unless choice of court

82
Q

Shenavai

A

forum contractus (art 7.1)
- accessorium sequitur principale rule
- in contracts with a preponderant obligation –> the preponderant obligation will determine the place of performance

83
Q

Bier

A

forum delicti (art 7.2)
- tort and delict –> the place where this occurred
- CJEU expands art 7.2 = ribble effect: claimant can choose
- Handlungsort = locus delicti commissi = where the harmful event took place
- Erfolgort = locus damni = where the damages occur

84
Q

Kalfelis

A

forum delicti (art 7.2)
- tort = action which seeks to establish liability of the defendant and which are not related to a contract

closely connected cases (art 8)
- claims are so closely connected that it’s expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid irreconcilable judgments
- sole object test
- national court must assess this in each individual case

85
Q

Brownlie

A

forum delicti (art 7.2)
- ricochet damage
- forum non conveniens as a safety valve

86
Q

Dumez France

A

forum delicti (art 7.2)
- rule must be limited to places where the court has a direct link
- direct victim or direct consequences
- indirect victim for indirect consequences can sue, but only on the basis of art 4 or locus delicti commissi art 7.2

87
Q

Marinari

A

forum delicti (art 7.2)
- direct victim doesn’t have an extra forum on the indirect damage

88
Q

Shevill

A

forum delicti (art 7.2)
- every EU MS where damage has occurred can claim jurisdiction on the basis of locus damni
- but only to the extent of the damage that occurred within their specific district
- mosaic

89
Q

e-Date and Martinez (Kylie Minogue)

A

forum delicti (art 7.2)
- for the infringement of personality rights on an online website you have 3 options:
1. sue in the MS of the publisher for all damages
2. sue in the MS of the injured person’s centre of interest for all damages
3. Shevill rule

90
Q

Wintersteiger

A

forum delicti (art 7.2)
- e-Date can only apply for the infringement of personality rights on an online website

91
Q

Bolagsupplysningen

A

forum delicti (art 7.2)
- the rectification can only be claimed in a MS with jurisdiction to rule over the entirety of the application for compensation of damage
- a legal person can sue for the entire harm for online infringements in its MS of centre of interest
- its centre of interest = registered office > where it carries out the main part of its activities
- forum shopping

92
Q

Gtflix TV

A

forum delicti (art 7.2)
- a claimant who requests both rectification and damages can continue to use the Shevill rule for the damages
- subject to the accessibility of the site

93
Q

Mittelbayerischer Verlag

A

forum delicti (art 7.2)
- there needs to be an identification of people you could have insulted

94
Q

Folien Fischer

A

forum delicti (art 7.2)
- negative declarations of tort are covered
- also applies if damage hasn’t yet occurred

95
Q

ÖFAB

A

forum delicti (art 7.2)
- locus delicti commissi in cases of tort by omission = the place where the tortfeasor’s action ought to have taken place

96
Q

Universal Music

A

forum delicti (art 7.2)
- purely economic damage
- the mere existence of a bank account is not a sufficient element

97
Q

Kolassa

A

forum delicti (art 7.2)
- more flexible approach toward locus damni in cases of purely economic damage
- mere fact that a claimant has suffered financial consequences in a legal district does not justify attribution of jurisdiction to that district

98
Q

Lober v. Barclays

A

forum delicti (art 7.2)
- which Austrian court?

99
Q

Kainz

A

forum delicti (art 7.2)
- product liability
- locus delicti commissi in case of damaged product = place where the event which damaged the product itself occurred = place where product was manufactured

100
Q

Volkswagen

A

forum delicti (art 7.2)
- CJEU didn’t follow minimal contract rule
- it’s about reduced value of car as such, not reduced monetary value –> direct damage in consumer’s domicile = potential for locus damni jurisdiction
- prof disagrees: pure money thing

101
Q

Vereniging van Effectenbezitters

A

forum delicti (art 7.2)
- CJEU reigns in jurisdiction using statutory reporting obligations (linked it to locus damni)

102
Q

flyLAL

A

forum delicti (art 7.2)

branch jurisdiction (art 7.5)
- in the case of tort based claims: branch needs to participate in at least some of the actions of the tort

103
Q

Brogsitter

A

special jurisdiction (art 7.1 and 7.2)
- some liabilities are neither art 7.1 or 7.2 –> do they pigeon tale? either one or the other?

104
Q

Wikingerhof

A

special jurisdiction (art 7.1 and 7.2) and choice of court (art 25)
- change of general contractual terms via popup on website –> change of court
- there needs to be consent
- was the complaint of Wikingerhof about abuse of dominant position art 7.1 or 7.2?
- Wikingerhof wanted forum delicti (7.2) so they could use locus damni

105
Q

Roche

A

closely connected cases (art 8)
- closely connected = same situation of law and fact
- European patent continues to be governed by the national law of each MS

106
Q

Solvay

A

closely connected cases (art 8)
- risk for irreconcilable judgments
- confirmed for IP rights

107
Q

Reisch Montage

A

closely connected cases (art 8)
- even when action against anchor defendant is inadmissible from the start under national law it can meet art 8.1 criteria
- even if anchor defendant raises no substantive defence –> is NOT an abuse of anchor mechanism

108
Q

Municipio de Mariano

A

lis alibi pendens (art 33-34)
- it needs to be either lis alibi pendens or related action (in casu related action)
- Anerkennungsprognose = looking over the fence of applicable law: will tje court be able to recognise the other judgment under their national rules?
- proper administration of justice

109
Q

Petrobas

A

lis alibi pendens (art 33-34)
- stay must be in the interest for the sound administration of justice

110
Q

De Cavel

A

provisional and protective measures (art 35)
- art 35 cannot bring excluded subject matter within the scope of BIa

111
Q

Reichert

A

provisional and protective measures (art 35)
- PPM = preserve a factual or legal situation

112
Q

Belo Horizonte

A

provisional and protective measures (art 35)
- different interpretation of PPM between MS
- seizure of documents = PPM
- access to documents is NOT PPM: goes further than provisional impact

113
Q

PPM conditions

A
  • measure has to be provisional or protective
  • real connecting link between subject matter of the measures and the territorial jurisdiction (Van Uden) (doesn’t have to be territorial sensu stricto)
  • it needs to be a judgment = Denilauler criteria: has to follow an inquire of adversarial proceedings
114
Q

Krombach v. Bamberski

A

recognition and enforcement
- absence of defence CAN justify refusal

115
Q

Trade Agency

A

recognition and enforcement
- public policy can NEVER be called upon to express absolute rejection of a legal mechanism available in another MS
- refusal must be ad hoc in the particular circumstances of the case

116
Q

Meroni

A

recognition and enforcement
- WFO’s
- refusal cannot be absolute
- needs to be in the specific circumstances of the case

PIL (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions