249 / 424
GAZETTE
L A W
B
I E
MWH
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995
~\\
)'l 1 '
|IM I'llu
t - J L
i
j l l t U ^ s i ^ l P
Who is Suing Whom?
by Dr Eamon G Hall
Introduction
The word "Convention" (with a capital
"C") perplexes many lawyers and,
perhaps, some judges. The
Brussels
Convention,
the
Lugano Convention
and
the Rome Convention trip off the
tongues of some of our learned brothers
and sisters. The time was when
generations of lawyers could complete
their entire legal studies (including a
university degree) without hearing the
word "Convention" ever mentioned.
Those days are gone.
Whilst not pretending in any sense to be
an expert in these matters, it is
appropriate to mention what is
understood by some of the above
Conventions. The
Brussels
Convention
is generally understood as meaning the
EC Convention on Jurisdiction
and
Enforcement
of Judgments in Civil and
Commercial
Matters
(1986) which was
given effect to in Ireland by the
Jurisdiction
of Courts and
Enforcement
of Judgments (European
Communities)
Act, 1988.
A foreign judgment is
enforceable in Ireland if it has been
rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction. The 1988 Act has been
amended to take account of the
assession of Spain and Portugal (the
1989
Assession Convention)
and also to
bring the 1986 EC
Brussels
Convention
into line with the
Lugano
Convention
which governs the
Enforcement
of
Judgments between EC and EFTA
(European Free Trade Association)
member states. This was given effect in
Ireland by the
Jurisdiction
of Courts and
Enforcement of Judgments Act, 1993.
The
Brussels Convention
has also been
supplemented by the 1990
Rome
Convention.
The
Rome
Convention,
made between Member States of the
European Communities, relates to the
simplification of procedures for the
recovery of maintenance payments. See
generally,
Peter Byrne,
the
European
Union and Lugano Conventions
on
Jurisdiction
and Enforcement
of
Judgments,
Baikonur (1994).
Twinkle Egan,
Barrister-at-Law
What does all the above lead to in the
context of who is suing whom? Ms.
Twinkle Egan, barrister-at-law, King's
Inn, Middle Temple and New York
State, has proposed an imaginative and
constructive scheme for a
Centralised
European Union Convention
Cause
Book and Judgment Registry
Database.
Ms. Egan is the owner of the intellectual
property rights in the scheme, she has
assigned her European interest therein
on behalf of "the many varied and
different peoples who live on the island
known as Ireland" to the European
Union subject to and in consideration of
the European Union providing the full
capital funding for the setting up of the
scheme in Ireland.
What
is
Involved?
If proceedings are instituted in Ireland
under the
Brussels Convention
against,
for example, an English company for
damages caused by faulty goods, there
is only a record of those proceedings in
Ireland. Yet at the same time,
proceedings could be instituted in
Germany under the Convention against
the exact same English company for
similar faulty goods. Again, there would
only be a record of those proceedings in
Germany. There is at present no record
of either set of proceedings which
would appear in any search or check
undertaken by anyone in England
against the English company. Under the
proposed scheme, the key information
contained in the Irish and German files
would be transferred onto a centralised
database for on-line access for
interested parties.
The Data
The data stored about each Convention
case would be submitted and made
available in a standard tabular form, set
out as follows:
Centralised European Union
Convention Cause Book and
Judgment Registry Database
1. Country of Origin
2 Name of Plaintiff
3. Date of Issue
4. Record No.
5. Domicile of Defendant
6. Name and Full Address of
Defendant
7. Classification of Subject Matter
Under the Convention Tick
appropriate box
A.
B.
C.
D.
8. Breach of International
Standard Number if applicable
S.I. No. etc.
225
tv
•