Case Law 1968 Brussels Convention

Article 6 of the 1968 Brussels Convention

 


Two or more defendants [Article 6, point 1]


ECJ 13 July 2006 ‘Roche v Primus and Goldenberg’ (Case C-539/03, ECR 2006 p. I-06535)

Article 6, point 1, of the 1968 Brussels Convention must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply in European patent infringement proceedings involving a number of companies established in various Contracting States in respect of acts committed in one or more of those States even where those companies, which belong to the same group, may have acted in an identical or similar manner in accordance with a common policy elaborated by one of them. Since neither the patent infringements of which the various defendants are accused nor the national law in relation to which those acts are assessed are the same, there is no risk of irreconcilable decisions being given in European patent infringement proceedings brought in different Contracting States, since possible divergences between decisions given by the courts concerned would not arise in the context of the same factual and legal situation. It follows that the connection required for Article 6, point 1, of the Brussels Convention to apply cannot be established between such actions (see paras 20, 25, 27-28, 31, 33, 35, 41, operative part).

 

ECJ 27 October 1998 ‘Réunion v Spliethoff's (Case C-51/97, ECR 1998 p. I-06511)

Article 6, point 1, of the Convention of 27 September 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that a defendant domiciled in a Contracting State cannot, on the basis of that provision, be sued in another Contracting State before a court seised of an action against a co-defendant not domiciled in a Contracting State on the ground that the dispute is indivisible rather than merely displaying a connection. The objective of legal certainty pursued by the Convention would not be attained if the fact that a court in a Contracting State had accepted jurisdiction as regards one of the defendants not domiciled in a Contracting State made it possible to bring another defendant, domiciled in a Contracting State, before that same court in cases other than those envisaged by the Convention, thereby depriving him of the benefit of the protective rules laid down by it.

 

ECJ 27 September 1988 'Athanasios v Bankhaus Schröder c.s.' (Case 189/87, ECR 1988 p. 05565)

For Article 6, point 1, of the 1968 Brussels Conventionto apply, a connection must exist between the various actions brought by the same plaintiff against different defendants . That connection, whose nature must be determined independently, must be of such a kind that it is expedient to determine the actions together in order to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings .

 


Third party in third-party proceedings [Article 6, point 2]


ECJ 26 May 2005 ‘GIE c.s. v Zurich España and Soptrans’ (Case C-77/04, ECR 2005 p. I-04509)

Article 6, point 2, of the 1968 Brussels Convention is applicable to third-party proceedings between insurers based on multiple insurance, in so far as there is a sufficient connection between the original proceedings and the third-party proceedings to support the conclusion that the choice of forum does not amount to an abuse. It is for the national court seised of the original claim to verify the existence of such a connection, in the sense that it must satisfy itself that the third-party proceedings do not seek to remove the defendant from the jurisdiction of the court which would be competent in the case (see paras 32, 36, operative part 2).

 

ECJ 15 May 1990 ‘Agentur Hagen v Zeehaghe’ (Case C-365/88, ECR 1990 p. I-01845)

Where a defendant domiciled in a Contracting State is sued in a court of another Contracting State pursuant to Article 5, point 1, of the 1968 Brussels Convention, that court also has jurisdiction by virtue of Article 6, point 2, of that Convention to entertain an action on a warranty or guarantee brought against a person domiciled in a Contracting State other than that of the court seised of the original proceedings. To enable the entire dispute to be heard by a single court, Article 6, point 2, simply requires there to be a connecting factor between the main action and the action on a warranty or guarantee, irrespective of the basis on which the court has jurisdiction in the original proceedings.

Article 6, point 2, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the national court to accede to the request for leave to bring an action on a warranty or guarantee and that the national court may apply the procedural rules of its national law in order to determine whether that action is admissible, provided that the effectiveness of the 1968 Brussels Convention in that regard is not impaired and, in particular, that leave to bring the action on the warranty or guarantee is not refused on the ground that the third party resides or is domiciled in a Contracting State other than that of the court seised of the original proceedings.

 


Counterclaim arising from the same contract or facts as the original claim [Article 6, point 3]


ECJ 26 May 2005 ‘GIE c.s. v Zurich España and Soptrans’ (Case C-77/04, ECR 2005 p. I-04509)

Third-party proceedings between insurers based on multiple insurance are not subject to the rules of special jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance in Section 3 of Title II of the 1968 Brussels Convention. In affording the insured a wider range of jurisdiction than that available to the insurer and in excluding any possibility of a clause conferring jurisdiction for the benefit of the insurer, the provisions of that section reflect an underlying concern to protect the insured, who in most cases is faced with a predetermined contract, the clauses of which are no longer negotiable, and is the weaker party economically. No special protection is justified since the parties concerned are professionals in the insurance sector, none of whom may be presumed to be in a weaker position than the others (see paras 17, 20, 24, operative part 1).

 

ECJ 13 July 1995 ‘Danværn v Schuhfabriken Otterbeck’ (Case C-341/93, ECR 1995 p. I-02053)

Article 6, point 3, of the 1968 Brussels Convention is intended to establish the conditions under which a court has jurisdiction to hear a claim which would involve a separate judgment or decree. It therefore applies only to claims by defendants which seek the pronouncement of such a judgment or decree. It does not apply to the situation where a defendant raises, as a pure defence, a claim which he allegedly has against the plaintiff. The defences which may be raised and the conditions under which they may be raised are governed by national law.