|
IV. CONCLUSION
It may be wise to stop here and give a conclusion to the new wording in Article 5(1) of the Brussels 1 Regulation. The changes in Article 5(1) do make the jurisdiction rules on contractual matters more certain than ever before. The special system for certain contractual relationship provide a simple, specific and foreseeable jurisdiction rule. However, obviously, there are difficulties to approach a new provision which will be satisfied by all the Member States and can give solution to all the issues in practice. This gives the space of development of the regulation and needs the European Court of Justice to play a more important role in the future.
【注释】 “A person domiciled in a Contracting State may, in another Contracting State, be sued: in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question”, Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention
“A person domiciled in a Contracting State may, in another Contracting State, be sued: in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question. In matters relating to individual contracts of employment, this place is that where the employee habitually carries out his work, or if the employee does not habitually carry out his work in any one country, this place shall be the place of business through which he was engaged.”, Article 5(1) of the Lugano Convention
Case 14/76 De Bloos v Bouyer ECR 1497.
Case 14/76 De Bloos v Bouyer ECR 1497, para. 11 of the judgment
Case 14/76 De Bloos v Bouyer ECR 1497, para. 13 of the judgment
Case 14/76 De Bloos v Bouyer ECR 1497, para. 8, 9 of the judgment
Ketilbjorn Hertz, Jurisdiction in Contract and Tort under the Brussels Convention, Juris- og Okonomforbundets Forlag, 1998, PP. 89
|
