SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul / 2022 / Sayı: 71

Performance of Characteristic Obligation in Multiple Places under Brussels I Recast Article 7(1)(b): Legal Certainty and Predictability over “a Close Connection”

Banu Şit Köşgeroğlu(HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-8407-9446
Pages
349–390
Publication Date
2022-12-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a result, it is proposed to abandon the “principal place of performance” approach in cases where the place of performance is located in several Member States; and it is argued that it is necessary to recognize that the courts of several places of performance are competent.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article offers a critique of the teleological interpretation of the provision of Art. 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation Recast, adopted by the Court of Justice of the European Union, in relation to the cases where there are several places of performance.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Secondly, the “principal place of performance” approach of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the provision of Art. 7(1)(b), in cases where there are several places of performance, is discussed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result, it is proposed to abandon the “principal place of performance” approach in cases where the place of performance is located in several Member States; and it is argued that it is necessary to recognize that the courts of several places of performance are competent.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:rivate International Law · International Procedural Law · International Jurisdiction

Abstract

This article offers a critique of the teleological interpretation of the provision of Art. 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation Recast, adopted by the Court of Justice of the European Union, in relation to the cases where there are several places of performance. First, the nature of the jurisdiction rules in civil law is discussed and the main purpose of the special jurisdiction rules is identified. In this context, it is emphasized that legal certainty and predictability are the main objectives of the jurisdiction rules, while proximity is an instrument to achieve these main objectives. Secondly, the “principal place of performance” approach of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the provision of Art. 7(1)(b), in cases where there are several places of performance, is discussed. It is demonstrated that the Court of Justice of the European Union’s quest for the “closest link” is not in accordance with the spirit of the Recast. Aside from the difficulty of determining the principal place of performance; the search for the closest link being the basis of the determination of the principal place of performance is criticized. Additionally, this approach is remarkable as to how it is close to the application of “forum (non) conveniens” in common law. As a result, it is proposed to abandon the “principal place of performance” approach in cases where the place of performance is located in several Member States; and it is argued that it is necessary to recognize that the courts of several places of performance are competent.

🔖

Cite This Article

Köşgeroğlu, B. Ş. (2022). Performance of Characteristic Obligation in Multiple Places under Brussels I Recast Article 7(1)(b): Legal Certainty and Predictability over “a Close Connection”. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, Sayı: 71, 349–390. https://ajindex.com/articles/1259128

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (23)

  1. Briggs, A, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments, 6th ed. (Informa law from Routledge 2015). google scholar
  2. Dickinson A and Lein, E, The Brussels I Regulation Recast (Oxford University Press 2015). google scholar
  3. Droz, G A L, ‘Delendum est forum contractus’ (1997) Recueil Dalloz, Chronique 351-356. google scholar
  4. Ehrenzweig, A A, ‘The Transient Rule of Personal Jurisdiction: The “Power” Myth and Forum Conveniens’ (1956) 65 Yale L. J. 289-314. google scholar
  5. Franzina, P and Michaels, R, ‘Jurisdiction, Foundations’ (2017) Encyclopedia of Private International Law 1042-1051. google scholar
  6. Graziano, T K, ‘Jurisdiction under article 7 no. 1 of the recast Brussels I regulation: disconnecting the procedural place of performance from its counterpart in substantive law. An analysis of the case law of the ECJ and proposals de lege lata and de lege ferenda’ (2015) 16 Yearbook of Private International Law 169-217. google scholar
  7. Grossi, S, The U.S. Supreme Court and the Modern Common Law Approach (Cambridge University Press 2015). google scholar
  8. Hartley, T C, ‘Basic Principles of Jurisdiction in Private International Law: The European Union, The United States and England’ (2021) ICLQ 1-16. google scholar
  9. Heuze, V, ‘De quelques infirmites congenitales du droit uniforme: l’exemple de l’article 5-1 de la Convention de Bruxelles du 27 septembre 1968’ (2000) Revue critique de droit international prive 595-639. google scholar
  10. Hill, J, ‘Jurisdiction in Matters Relating to a Contract under Brussels Convention’ (1995) 44 ICLQ 591-619. google scholar
  11. Juenger, F, ‘Judicial Jurisdiction in the United States and in the European Communities: A Comparison’ (1984) 82 Mich. L. Rev. 1195-1212. google scholar
  12. Magnus, U and Mankowski, P, Brussels I Bis Regulation: Commentary (Otto Schmidt 2016). google scholar
  13. Mankowski, P, Special Jurisdictions, Article 5, Brussels I Regulation, (European Law Publishers 2007) 78-235. google scholar
  14. Michaels, R, ‘Two Paradigms of Jurisprudence’ (2006) 27 Mich. J. Int’l L. 1004-1069. google scholar
  15. Newton, J, The Uniform Interpretation of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions (Hart Publishing 2002). google scholar
  16. Okoli, C S A, Place of Performance: A Comparative Analysis (Hart Publishing 2020). google scholar
  17. Pâlsson, L, ‘The Unruly Horse of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions: The Forum Solutionis’ Festkrif für Ole Lando (Copenhagen 1997) 259-282. google scholar
  18. Schlosser, P F, ‘Lectures on Civil-Law Litigation Systems and American Cooperation with Those Systems’ (1996) 45 U. Kan. L. Rev. 9-48. google scholar
  19. Poon, A, ‘Determining the Place of Performance under Article 7(1) of the Brussels I Recast’ (2021) 70 ICLQ 635-663. google scholar
  20. Tetley, W, ‘Mixed Jurisdictions: common law vs civil law (codified and uncodified)’ (Part II) (1999-4) Rev. dr. unif. 678-738. google scholar
  21. Van Lith, H, International Jurisdiction and Commercial Litigation (T.M.C. Asser Press 2009). google scholar
  22. Von Dryander, C, ‘Jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Matters under the German Code of Civil Procedure’ (1982) 16 No 4 Int’l Lawyer 671-692. google scholar
  23. Von Mehren, A T, ‘Adjudicatory Jurisdiction: General Theories Compared and Evaluated’ (19831984) 6 Tel Aviv U. Stud. L. 50-121. google scholar