EU Private International Law

EU Private International Law

Third Edition

Elgar European Law series

Peter Stone

Thoroughly revised and updated, this third edition of EU Private International Law incorporates many developments in legislation and case-law since the publication of the second edition in 2010. Building on the book’s reputation for comprehensive coverage and attention to detail, Peter Stone provides an authoritative and accessible introduction to the subject.

Chapter 8: Concurrent proceedings

Peter Stone

Subjects: law - academic, european law, private international law

Extract

Chapter II of the Brussels I Regulation frequently gives a plaintiff a choice of Member States in which to sue. Hence, in order to reduce the risk of irreconcilable judgments being given by courts of different Member States, and also to increase co-ordination in the exercise of judicial functions within the European Union so as to promote litigational economy and avoid waste, Articles 29–32 (ex Articles 27–30) in Section 9 regulate the problem of proceedings simultaneously pending in courts of different Member States in respect of similar or related disputes. Articles 33–34, which are new provisions in the revised version, deal with proceedings simultaneously pending in courts of a Member State and an external country. As regards concurrent proceedings in courts of different Member States, Section 9 is based primarily on a simple test of chronological priority, under which the court subsequently seised is required or invited to defer to the court first seised, rather than on a judicial evaluation of the relative appropriateness or convenience of the two fora. In the case of similar actions, Article 29 (ex Article 27) imposes on the court subsequently seised a mandatory obligation to decline jurisdiction in favour of the court first seised. In the case of dissimilar but related actions, Article 30 (ex Article 28) gives the second court a discretion to stay its proceedings, or in certain circumstances to decline jurisdiction altogether, in favour of the first court.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information