Case Law 1968 Brussels Convention
Article 22 of the 1968 Brussels Convention
ECJ
6 December 1994 ‘Tatry v Maciej Rataj’ (Case
C-406/92, ECR 1994 p. I-05439) 
1. On a proper construction, Article 57 of the 1968 Brussels Convention means that, where a Contracting 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 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 accordingly apply (...).
4. The concept of "related actions" defined in the third paragraph of Article 22 of the 1968 Brussels Convention, which must be given an independent interpretation, must be interpreted broadly and, without its being necessary to consider the concept of irreconcilable judgments in Article 27(3) of the Convention, must cover all cases where there is a risk of conflicting decisions, even if the judgments can be separately enforced and their legal consequences are not mutually exclusive. It is accordingly sufficient, in order to establish the necessary relationship between, on the one hand, an action brought in a Contracting State by one group of cargo owners against a shipowner seeking damages for harm caused to part of the cargo carried in bulk under separate but identical contracts, and, on the other, an action in damages brought in another Contracting State against the same shipowner by the owners of another part of the cargo shipped under the same conditions and under contracts which are separate from but identical to those between the first group and the shipowner, that separate trial and judgment would involve the risk of conflicting decisions, without necessarily involving the risk of giving rise to mutually exclusive legal consequences.
ECJ
20 January 1994 ‘Owens Bank v Bracco’ (Case
C-129/92, ECR 1994 p. I-00117)
The 1968 Brussels Convention and, in particular, Articles 21, 22 and 23 thereof, do not apply to proceedings, or to issues arising in proceedings, in Contracting States for the recognition and enforcement of judgments given in civil and commercial matters in non-contracting States.
First, it follows from Articles 26 and 31 of the Convention, which are to be read in conjunction with Article 25, that the procedures provided for in Title III of the Convention, which concerns recognition and enforcement, apply only to judgments given by the courts of Contracting States. Secondly, the rules on jurisdiction contained in Title II of the Convention do not establish the forum in which proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of judgments given in non-contracting States are to take place, having regard to the fact that Article 16(5), which provides that in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments the courts of the Contracting State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced are to have exclusive jurisdiction, is also to be read in conjunction with the definition of "judgment" contained in Article 25. No distinction can be drawn in that regard between an order for enforcement simpliciter and a judgment of a court of a Contracting State ruling on an issue arising in proceedings for the enforcement of a judgment given in a non-contracting State, since if the subject-matter of such a dispute is such that it falls outside the scope of the Convention, the existence of a preliminary issue on which the court has to give a ruling in order to decide the dispute cannot justify the application of the Convention, whatever the nature of that issue may be.
Case Law 1968 Brussels Convention
Article 23 of the 1968 Brussels Convention
ECJ
20 January 1994 ‘Owens Bank v Bracco’ (Case
C-129/92, ECR 1994 p. I-00117)
The 1968 Brussels Convention and, in particular, Articles 21, 22 and 23 thereof, do not apply to proceedings, or to issues arising in proceedings, in Contracting States for the recognition and enforcement of judgments given in civil and commercial matters in non-contracting States.
First, it follows from Articles 26 and 31 of the Convention, which are to be read in conjunction with Article 25, that the procedures provided for in Title III of the Convention, which concerns recognition and enforcement, apply only to judgments given by the courts of Contracting States. Secondly, the rules on jurisdiction contained in Title II of the Convention do not establish the forum in which proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of judgments given in non-contracting States are to take place, having regard to the fact that Article 16(5), which provides that in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments the courts of the Contracting State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced are to have exclusive jurisdiction, is also to be read in conjunction with the definition of "judgment" contained in Article 25. No distinction can be drawn in that regard between an order for enforcement simpliciter and a judgment of a court of a Contracting State ruling on an issue arising in proceedings for the enforcement of a judgment given in a non-contracting State, since if the subject-matter of such a dispute is such that it falls outside the scope of the Convention, the existence of a preliminary issue on which the court has to give a ruling in order to decide the dispute cannot justify the application of the Convention, whatever the nature of that issue may be.