Case Law 1968 Brussels Convention
Article 47 of the 1968 Brussels Convention
ECJ
14 March 1996 ‘Van der Linden v Berufsgenossenschaft’ (Case
C-275/94, ECR 1996 p. I-01393) 
Article 47(1) of the 1968 Brussels Convention is to be interpreted as meaning that, where the domestic procedural rules of the State in which application is made so permit, proof of service of the judgment delivered in the State of origin may be produced after the application has been made, in particular during the course of appeal proceedings subsequently brought by the party against whom enforcement is sought, provided that that party is given a reasonable period of time in which to satisfy the judgment voluntarily and that the party seeking enforcement bears all costs unnecessarily incurred.
Case Law 1968 Brussels Convention
Article 50 of the 1968 Brussels Convention
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. 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 are enforced under exactly the same conditions as judgments.
Case Law 1968 Brussels Convention
Article 54 of the 1968 Brussels Convention
ECJ 13 November 1979 'Sanicentral v René Collin' (Case 25/79, ECR 1979 p. 03423)
Articles 17 and 54 of the 1968 Brussels Convention 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 1968 Brussels Convention
Article 55 and 56 of the 1968 Brussels Convention
ECJ 14 July 1977 ‘Bavaria v Eurocontrol’ (Joined cases 9 and 10-77, ECR 1977 p. 01517)
1. The principle of legal certainty in the community legal system and the objectives of the 1968 Brussels Convention in accordance with Article 220 of the EEC Treaty, which is at its origin, require in all Member States a uniform application of the legal concepts and legal classifications developed by the court in the context of the 1968 Brussels Convention.
2. A national court must not apply the 1968 Brussels Convention 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, which may contain rules for the recognition and enforcement of such judgments. As the first paragraph of Article 56 of the 1968 Brussels Convention 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 1968 Brussels Convention
Article 57 of the 1968 Brussels Convention
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 should be interpreted as meaning that the court of a Contracting State in which a defendant domiciled in another Contracting 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, applicable by virtue of the second sentence of Article 57(2)(a), 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, because Article 57 thereof 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 in which a defendant domiciled in another Contracting 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 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 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.