Case Law Brussels I Regulation
Article 57 of the Brussels I Regulation
(Art. 57 BR I = Art. 50 BC 1968)
ECJ
17 June 1999 ‘Unibank v Flemming (Case C-260/97,
ECR 1999 p. I-03715) 
An acknowledgment of indebtedness enforceable under the law of the State of origin whose authenticity has not been established by a public authority or other authority empowered for that purpose by that State does not constitute an authentic instrument within the meaning of Article 50 of the 1968 Brussels Convention [Article 57 of the Brussels I Regulation]. The authentic nature of such instruments must be established beyond dispute so that the court in the State in which enforcement is sought is in a position to rely on their authenticity, since the instruments covered by Article 50 [Article 57 Regulation] are enforced under exactly the same conditions as judgments.
Case Law Brussels I Regulation
Article 66 of the Brussels I Regulation
(Art. 61 and 66 BR I = Art. 54 BC 1968)
ECJ
13 November 1979 'Sanicentral v René Collin' (Case
25/79, ECR 1979 p. 03423)
Articles 17 and 54 of the 1968 Brussels Convention [Article 23 and 66 of the Brussels I Regulation] must be interpreted to mean that, in judicial proceedings instituted after the coming into force of the convention, clauses conferring jurisdiction included in contracts of employment concluded prior to that date must be considered valid even in cases in which they would have been regarded as void under the national law in force at the time when the contract was entered into.
Case Law Brussels I Regulation
Article 69 and 70 of the 1968 Brussels Convention
(Art. 69 and 70 BR I = Art. 55 and 56 BC 1968)
ECJ
14 July 1977 ‘Bavaria v Eurocontrol’ (Joined
cases 9 and 10-77, ECR 1977 p. 01517)
A national court must not apply the 1968 Brussels Convention [the Brussels I Reulation] so as to recognize or enforce judgments which are excluded from its scope as determined by the court of justice. On the other hand, it is not prevented from applying to the same judgments one of the special agreements referred to in Article 55 of the 1968 Brussels Convention [Article 69 of the Brussels I Regulation], which may contain rules for the recognition and enforcement of such judgments. As the first paragraph of Article 56 of the 1968 Brussels Convention [Article 70 of the Brussels I Regulation] recognizes, these agreements continue to have effect in relation to judgments to which the 1968 Brussels Convention does not apply. Since Article 1 of the Protocol of 3 June 1971 gives the court jurisdiction to interpret only the 1968 Brussels Convention and the Protocol, it is solely for the national courts to judge the scope of the abovementioned agreements in relation to judgments to which the 1968 Brussels Convention does not apply. This may lead to the same expression in the 1968 Brussels Convention and in a bilateral agreement being interpreted differently.
Case Law Brussels I Regulation
Article 71 of the Brussels I Regulation
(Art. 71 BR I = Art. 57 BC 1968)
ECJ
4 May 2010 'TNT Express Nederland BV v AXA Versicherung AG' (Case
C-533/08)
1. Article 71 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as the main proceedings, the rules governing jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement that are laid down by a convention on a particular matter, such as the lis pendens rule set out in Article 31(2) of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, signed at Geneva on 19 May 1956, as amended by the Protocol signed at Geneva on 5 July 1978, and the rule relating to enforceability set out in Article 31(3) of that convention, apply provided that they are highly predictable, facilitate the sound administration of justice and enable the risk of concurrent proceedings to be minimised and that they ensure, under conditions at least as favourable as those provided for by the regulation, the free movement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and mutual trust in the administration of justice in the European Union (favor executionis).
2. The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to interpret Article 31 of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, as amended.
ECJ
28 October 2004 'Nürnberger Versicherungs v Portbridge' (Case
C-148/03, ECR 2004 p. 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 [Member 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 [Member 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
6 December 1994 ‘Tatry v Maciej Rataj’ (Case
C-406/92, ECR 1994 p. I-05439)
On a proper construction, Article 57 of the 1968 Brussels Convention [Article 71 of the Brussels I Regulation] means that, where a Contracting State [Member State] is also a contracting party to another Convention on a specific matter containing rules on jurisdiction, that specialized Convention precludes the application of the provisions of the 1968 Brussels Convention [the Brussels I Regulation] only in cases governed by the specialized Convention and not in those to which it does not apply. Where a specialized Convention contains certain rules of jurisdiction but no provision as to lis pendens or related actions, Articles 21 and 22 of the 1968 Brussels Convention [Articles 27 and 28 of the Brussels I Regulation] accordingly apply.