265 / 448
GAZETTE
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1996
Where Can One Sue
in the European Union?
By T.P. Kennedy*
INTRODUCTION
In a ny legal d i s p u te i n v o l v i ng a p e r s on
f r o m a n o t h er M e m b e r State of the
E u r o p e an U n i on - w h e t h er it be a
d i s p u te a r i s i ng f r o m a c o n t r a ct b e t w e en
an Irish d i s t r i b u t or a nd an Italian
m a n u f a c t u r er or a civil c l a im f r o m a
r o ad traffic a c c i d e nt in F r a n ce i n v o l v i ng
Irish tourists - the first q u e s t i on to be
a s k ed is b e f o re w h i ch c o u rt c an an
a c t i on be b r o u g h t. In s o me
c i r c u m s t a n c es an a c t i on c an be b r o u g ht
b e f o re a f o r e i gn court, e v en w h e re the
t w o p a r t i es are Irish or in Ireland e v en
t h o u gh the t w o parties are f r om o u t s i de
Ireland. T h e rules f o r d e t e r m i n i ng
w h e r e o n e c an s ue are laid d o w n in the
B r u s s e ls C o n v e n t i on of 1968 on
J u r i s d i c t i on a nd the E n f o r c e m e nt of
J u d g m e n ts in Civil a nd C o mm e r c i al
Ma t t e rs ( ' t he C o n v e n t i o n ' ). T h is article
will set o ut t h e se rules but will not
a d d r e ss the situation w h e re parties a g r ee
on a p a r t i c u l ar c o u rt or w h e re a
d e f e n d a nt s u bm i ts to a c o u r t 's
j u r i s d i c t i o n.
O n e of the a i ms of the C o n v e n t i on is to
s t a n d a r d i se a nd s i mp l i fy the rules
c o n c e r n i ng j u r i s d i c t i o n. B e f o re the
a d o p t i on of t he C o n v e n t i on e a ch
M e m b e r State h ad its o w n individual
rules f or d e t e r m i n i ng j u r i s d i c t i o n, with
c o n s e q u e n t i al a t t e n d a nt u n c e r t a i n ty in
s e e k i ng to a d v i se clients. T h e
C o n v e n t i on c o n s i d e r a b ly s i mp l i f i ed this
by p r o v i d i ng a c o m m o n set of rules
o b s e r v ed by e a ch M e m b e r State.
T h o u g h it h as its critics, w h o r ema in
a t t a c h ed to the c o m m o n law rules', the
C o n v e n t i on is a m a j o r i m p r o v e m e nt on
the o ld rules.
T h e C o n v e n t i on w a s i m p l e m e n t ed into
the d o m e s t ic l aw of Ireland by the
J u r i s d i c t i on of C o u r ts a nd the
E n f o r c e m e nt of J u d g m e n ts A ct 1988.
T h e A ct ( i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y) t o ok e f f e ct on
1 Ap r il 1989. T h e A ct p r o v i d es that the
C o n v e n t i on is to be treated like any
o t h er Irish statute, e x c e pt that it is to be
T P Kennedy
interpreted in a c c o r d a n ce w i th the
d e c i s i o ns of the E u r o p e an C o u rt of
Justice ( ' t he C o u r t ' ). In a d d i t i o n, in
interpreting the C o n v e n t i on r e g a rd c an
b e h ad to the interpretative r e p o rt
( wh i ch w as d r a wn up by Prof. J e n a r d ).
T h e C o n v e n t i on w a s s u b s e q u e n t ly
a m e n d ed by the S an S e b a s t i an
C o n v e n t i on a nd this w a s g i v en e f f e ct in
Ireland by the J u r i s d i c t i on of C o u r ts a nd
E n f o r c e m e nt of J u d g e m e n ts A ct 1993.
T h e re is a parallel C o n v e n t i on - the
L u g a n o C o n v e n t i on - w h i ch r e g u l a t es
similar ma t t e rs b e t w e en E U a nd E F T A
m e m b e r states ( N o r w a y, I c e l a nd a nd
Sw i t z e r l a n d) a nd b e t w e en the latter
states. T h is C o n v e n t i on is practically
identical to the B r u s s e ls C o n v e n t i o n,
t h o u gh t h e re are s o me relatively m i n or
d i f f e r e n c e s.
SCOPE
Article 1 p r o v i d es that the C o n v e n t i on
a p p l i es in civil a nd c o mm e r c i al ma t t e r s.
C r i m i n al a nd p u b l ic law ma t t e rs are
e x c l u d e d. Article 1 c o n t a i ns a n u m b er
of e x p r e ss e x c l u s i o n s:
(a) status or c a p a c i ty of natural p e r s o n s;
(b) rights in p r o p e r ty arising f r om
ma r r i a g e, e x c e pt f or m a i n t e n a n ce
o r d e rs a f t er a d i v o r ce ;
(c) wills a n d s u c c e s s i o n;
(d) b a n k r u p t cy a nd r e l a t ed ma t t e r s.
" B a n k r u p t c y" i n c l u d es p r o c e e d i n gs
f or the w i n d i ng u p of c o m p a n i es or
o t h er legal p e r s o n s, j u d i c i al
a r r a n g e m e n t s, a nd c o m p o s i t i o ns ;
(e) social security;
(f) arbitration;
(g) c u s t o ms or a dm i n i s t r a t i ve ma t t e r s;
JURISDICTIONAL RULES
T h e g e n e r al rule of j u r i s d i c t i on is that
p e r s o ns d om i c i l ed in a m e m b e r state are
to b e s u ed in c o u r ts of that state ( A r t i c le
2). " D o m i c i l e d" m e a n s o r d i n a r i ly
resident. It d o es n ot r e f er to the
c o m m o n l aw c o n c e pt of d om i c i l e.
S e c t i on 13 p r o v i d es that d o m i c i le f o r
the p u r p o s es of the C o n v e n t i on is
d e f i n ed by the fifth s c h e d u le to the Ac t.
Part I p r o v i d es that a p e r s on is
d om i c i l ed in the state if he is o r d i n a r i ly
r e s i d e nt there. P a rt III p r o v i d es that the
d om i c i le of a c o m p a ny or a s s o c i a t i on is
w h e r e it w a s i n c o r p o r a t ed or w h e r e its
central m a n a g e m e nt a n d c o n t r ol is
e x e r c i s e d.
T h e r e are a n u m b e r of e x c e p t i o ns to the
g e n e r al rule a l l o w i ng a plaintiff a c h o i ce
of a l t e r n a t i ve state in w h i ch to b r i ng an
action. T h e s e e x c e p t i o ns are c o n t a i n ed
in A r t i c l es 5 a n d 6. T h e p r i m a ry
o n e s are:
CONTRACT
Article 5 ( 1) p r o v i d es that a d e f e n d a nt
m a y be s u ed in c o n t r a ct e i t h er w h e r e h e
is d o m i c i l ed or in the state w h i ch is
the p l a ce of p e r f o r m a n ce of the
o b l i g a t i on in q u e s t i o n.
Matters Relating to a Contract
A r t i c le 5( 1) a p p l i es "in ma t t e rs relating
to a c o n t r a c t ". T h i s is g i v en a w i d e
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n.
In
Arcado
-v-
Havilland\
the Court held
that a c l a im flowing f r om a r e p u d i a t ed
249