Case Law Brussels I Regulation (44/2001)
Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation
(Art. 24 BR I = Art. 18 BC 1968)
ECJ 20 May 2010 ‘Ceská -Vienna Insurance Group v Michal Bilas’
(Case C-111/09)
An insurance company brought an action against the policyholder before court seeking an order for the payment by the latter of premium and interest due under an insurance policy concluded between those parties. After being called to the national District Court to submit his observations, the policyholder challenged the legal claim of the insurance company as to its substance without contesting the jurisdiction of the court seised. Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the court seised, where the rules in Section 3 of Chapter II of that Regulation were not complied with, must declare itself to have jurisdiction where the defendant enters an appearance and does not contest that court’s jurisdiction, since entering an appearance in that way amounts to a tacit prorogation of jurisdiction.
ECJ
27 April 1999 ‘Mietz v Intership Yachting Sneek’ (Case
C-99/96, ECR 1999 p. I-02277) 
The fact that the defendant appears before the court dealing with interim measures in the context of fast procedures intended to grant provisional or protective measures in case of urgency and which do not prejudice the examination of the substance cannot, by itself, suffice to confer on that court, by virtue of Article 18 of the 1968 Brussels Convention [Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation], unlimited jurisdiction to order any provisional or protective measure which the court might consider appropriate if it had jurisdiction under the Convention [Regulation] as to the substance of the matter.
ECJ
7 March 1985 'Spitzley v Sommer' (Case 48/84, ECR
1985 p. 00787)
The court of a Contracting State [Member State] before which the applicant, without raising any objection as to the court's jurisdiction, enters an appearance in proceedings relating to a claim for a set-off which is not based on the same contract or subject-matter as the claims in his application and in respect of which there is a valid agreement conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of another Contracting Dtate within the meaning of Article 17 of the 1968 Brussels Convention [Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation] has jurisdiction by virtue of Article 18 of that Convention [Article 24 of that Regulation].
ECR
14 July 1983 ‘Gerling v del Tesoro dello Stato’ (Case
201/82. ECR 1983 p. 02503)
Article 18 of 1968 Brussels Convention [Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation] must be interpreted as meaning that it allows a defendant not merely to contest jurisdiction, but at the same time to submit, in the alternative, a defence on the substance of the case without thereby losing the right to raise an objection of want of jurisdiction.
ECJ
31 March 1982 'C.H.W. v G.J.H.' (Case 25/81, ECR 1982
p. 01189)
Article 18 of the 1968 Brussels Convention [Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation] must be interpreted as meaning that it allows the defendant not only to contest the jurisdiction but to submit at the same time in the alternative a defence on the substance of the action without however losing the right to raise an objection of lack of jurisdiction.
ECJ
22 October 1981 'Rohr v Ossberger' (Case 27/81,ECR
1981 p. 02431)
Article 18 of the 1968 Brussels Convention [Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation] must be interpreted as meaning that it allows the defendant not only to contest the jurisdiction but to submit at the same time in the alternative a defence on the substance of the action without, however, losing his right to raise an objection of lack of jurisdiction.
ECJ
24 June 1981 'Elefanten Schuh v Jacqmain' (Case 150/80,
ECR1981 p. 01671)
1. Article 18 of the 1968 Brussels Convention [Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation] applies even where the parties have by agreement designated a court which is to have jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 17 of that Convention [Article 23 of that Regulation].
2. Article 18 of the 1968 Brussels Convention [Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation] must be interpreted as meaning that the rule on jurisdiction which that provision lays down does not apply where the defendant not only contests the court's jurisdiction, but also makes submissions on the substance of the action, provided that if the challenge to jurisdiction is not preliminary to any defence as to the substance it does not occur after the making of the submissions which under national procedural law are considered to be the first defence addressed to the court seised.
Case Law Brussels I Regulation (44/2001)
Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation
(Art. 25 BR I = Art. 19 BC 1968)
ECJ
15 November 1983 'Duijnstee v Goderbauer' (Case 288/82,
ECR 1983 p. 03663)
1. The 1968 Brussels Convention [the Brussels I Regulation], which seeks to determine the jurisdiction of the courts of the Contracting States [Member States] in civil matters, must override national provisions which are incompatible with it.
2. Article 19 of that Convention [Article 25 of that Regulation] requires the national court to declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction whenever it finds that a court of another Contracting State [Member State] has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 16 of this Convention [Article 22 of this Regulation], even in an appeal in cassation where the national rules of procedure limit the court's reviewal to the grounds raised by the parties.
Case Law Brussels I Regulation (44/2001)
Article 26 of the Brussels I Regulation
(Art. 26 BR I = Art. 20 BC 1968)
ECJ 20 May 2010 ‘Ceská -Vienna Insurance Group v Michal Bilas’
(Case C-111/09)
An insurance company brought an action against the policyholder before court seeking an order for the payment by the latter of premium and interest due under an insurance policy concluded between those parties. After being called to the national District Court to submit his observations, the policyholder challenged the legal claim of the insurance company as to its substance without contesting the jurisdiction of the court seised. Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the court seised, where the rules in Section 3 of Chapter II of that Regulation were not complied with, must declare itself to have jurisdiction where the defendant enters an appearance and does not contest that court’s jurisdiction, since entering an appearance in that way amounts to a tacit prorogation of jurisdiction.
ECJ
28 October 2004 ‘Nürnberger Versicherungs v Portbridge Transport’
(Case C-148/03, ECR 2004 Page I-10327)
Article 57(2)(a) of the 1968 Brussels Convention [Article 71(2)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation] should be interpreted as meaning that the court of a Contracting State [Member State] in which a defendant domiciled in another Contracting State [Membre State] is sued may derive its jurisdiction from a specialised convention to which the first State is a party as well and which contains specific rules on jurisdiction, even where the defendant, in the course of the proceedings in question, submits no pleas on the merits and formally contests the jurisdiction of the court seised.
In that connection, although it is true that according to Article 20 of the 1968 Brussels Convention [Article 26 of the Brussels I Regulation], applicable by virtue of the second sentence of Article 57(2)(a) [Article 71(2)(a) Regulation], the court in question is required to declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction unless its jurisdiction was derived from the terms of that convention, the jurisdiction of that court must, however, be regarded as derived from the Convention [Regulation], because Article 57 thereof [Article 71 Regulation] specifically states that the rules of jurisdiction laid down by specialised conventions are not affected by that convention.
In those circumstances, when verifying of its own motion whether it has jurisdiction with respect to that convention, the court of a Contracting State [Member State] in which a defendant domiciled in another Contracting State [Membre State] is sued and fails to enter an appearance must take account of the rules of jurisdiction laid down by specialised conventions to which the first Contracting State [Member State] is also a party.
ECJ
15 July 1982 ‘Pendy Plastic v Pluspunkt’ (Case
228/81, ECR 1982 p. 02723)
The court of the State in which enforcement is sought may, if it considers that the conditions laid down by Article 27(2) of the 1968 Brussels Convention [Article 34(2) of the Brussels I Regulation] are fulfilled, refuse to grant recognition and enforcement of a judgment even though the court of the State in which the judgment was given regarded it as proven, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 20 of that Convention [Article 26(4) of that Regulation] in conjunction with Article 15 of the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965, that the defendant, who failed to enter an appearance, had an opportunity to receive service of the document instituting the proceedings in sufficient time to enable him to make arrangements for his defence.