Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T17:31:50.454Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The EEC Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments of 27 September 1968 in Dutch Legal Practice*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Hans Verheul
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
The EEC Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments of 27 September 1968 in Dutch Legal Practice
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , August 1983 , pp. 240 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. HR 6 February 1981 NJ 1982 no. 280.

2. 20 NILR (1981) p. 69, De cavel I.

3. HR 1 July 1982 RvdW nr. 150. The Court of Appeal's decision was reversed, however, for other reasons.

4. The Commission is of the same opinion in its written observation.

5. Court of Appeal of Amsterdam, 29 May 1981, NJ 555.

6. 28 NILR (1981) p. 80, note to Pres. DC of Almelo, 2 September 1977, assuming jurisdiction for an (urgent) money claim on the basis of Article 24. In the same sense Pres. DC of Amsterdam 14 Augustus 1980, AK 12947. Contra: Pres. DC of Roermond 18 May 1982 KG 1982 no. 90Google Scholar.

7. See the note by Gaudemet-Tallon, 72 Rev. Crit. (1982) p. 574.

8. The written observation submitted by the UK clearly distinguished the two possible interpretations.

9. See DC of Utrecht, 6 February 1974 NJ 1974 no. 449, NILR 1975 p. 341. DC of Den Bosch, 27 June 1975, NJ 1975 no. 482, NILR 1976 p. 353. DC of Amsterdam 29 June 1976 NJ 1978 no. 457, NILR 1976 p. 359. DC of Breda 29 November 1977 AK 12351. (But see DC of Rotterdam 13 January 1978 NJ 1978 no. 461).

10. See BGH 13 May 1982, NJW 1982 p. 2733.

11. Jenard, Off. Journal EC nr. C 59, 5 March 1979, p. 39. Schlosser, ibid.

12. See DC of Zwolle 22 May 1974, NILR 1975 p. 303, and 27 March 1974, NILR 1975 p. 344. Pres. DC of Arnhem 3 July 1975, NILR 1976 p. 361.

13. See DC of Breda 21 June 1977, NILR 1978 p. 81.

14. Court of Justice (14/75) 6 October 1976, Jur. 1497, NILR 1976 p. 351.

15. OJ, 7 July 1981, nr. C 166 p. 5.

16. Court of Justice (12/76) 6 October 1976, Jur. 1473, NILR 1976 p. 349.

17. Off. Journ. EC 1979, nr. C 59, p. 1. at p. 23/24.

18. Off. Journ. EC 1980, nr. L. 266, p. 1. Explanatory report Off. Journ. EC 1980, no. C 282 p. 1.

19. See the future Article 13 of the Convention, Off. Journ. EC 1978, nr. L 304, p. 81. The text of the Convention on the Accession of Denmark, Ireland and the UK., introducing this and other amendments, is at p. 1.

20. See the Preliminary Draft EEC Convention on the law applicable to contractual and non-contractual obligations, elaborated by a group of Government experts of the six original Member States of the EEC in June 1972. English version by Nadelmann in 21 Am. J. Comp. Law (1973) p. 587. Its Article 5 did not differ much from Article 6 of the Convention of 1980.

21. Cf., Articles 8 and 12 as to insurance and articles 14 and 15 as to installment sales and loans.

22. “the obligation in question”; “de verbintenis die aan de eis ten grondslagligt”; “l'obligation qui sert de base à la demande”.

23. Droz, Rev. Crit. 1976 129. Bülow-Böckstiegel, Der int. Rechtsverkehr, 606–59. DC of Amsterdam 29 June 1976, NJ 1978 no. 457, NILR 1976 p. 359.

24. The present case mentions ‘Une demande en paiement de commissions et d'indemnités de clientèle, de préavis et de congés payés’.

25. Belgium: Court of Appeal of Mons 3 May 11977, Rep. 1–5.1.1.B6 (in the case De Bloos v. Bouyer after remittal by the Court of Justice). Supreme Court 6 April 1978, JdT 1978 p. 618, and 28 June 1979, JdT (1979) p. 625. France: Court of Appeal of Amiens 26 April 1978, Supreme Court 27 November 1979 and 23 January 1979, Clunet 1980 p. 333. The Netherlands: DC of The Hague 17 April 1974, NILR 1975 p. 344, DC of Amsterdam 18 April 1979, below, E (but see the note 1 thereto).

26. to be extended by the concept of connexity. See 5.

27. Court of Appeal of Mona 3 May 1977 Rep. 1–5.1.1–B6 (in the case De Bloos v. Boyer). De Ceuster and Reich, RW 1978/1979 2786. Van der Elst, JdT 1976 p. 738. Contra: Droz. p. 195. Holleaux, Clunet 1980 p. 339. Gaudemt-Tallon, Rev. Crit. 1981 p. 126 (implicity), Landgericht of Cologne 23 March 1979 RIW/AWD 1980 p. 215. DC of Amsterdam 18 April 1979, see below.

28. Cf., also Article 22.

29. Elefanten Schuh v. Jacqmain, reported under 5, below.

30. Ars Aequi (1981) p. 603, under 6a.

31. Article 458 Comm. Code: If the ship is not available to the charterer at the time stipulated by the contract, he may terminate the contract, provided he notifies the other party thereof in writing within a reasonable period. He shall in any case be entitled to compensation without special notice of default being required, unless the disponent proves that he is not responsible for the delay, (transl. from Neth. Maritime Law, Commercial Code, Second Book, Royal Neth Shipowners Association 1960 loose leaf).

32. 10 July 1981, S & S 1981 p. 124.

33. Trb. 1964 nr. 117. Zweigeit/Kropholler, Sources of Int. Uniform Law, Vol. I p. 41.

34. DC of Amsterdam 5 April 1978 NJ 1979 no. 147 note Schultsz, Rep. 1–5.1.2–B 16. The Standard conditions provided: “Erfüllungsort für alle Lieferungen ist der Versandort”, and “Der Versand erfolgt ab Fabrik”.

35. Audit, note under Cass. 27 Nov. 1979, Rec. Dall. Sir. 1980 IR 329. Compare also Court of Appeal of Amiens 26 April 1978, Clunet 1980 p. 333: “le contrat concemaitle terntoire français”.

36. Cf., Court of Appeal of Paris 29 January 1981, Rev. Crit. 1982 p. 383.

37. See the note to DC of The Hague, 15 March 1978, NILR 1981 p. 79.

38. Articles 5(5) and 22(3), see Suppl. 2/82 to the Bulletin of the EC.

39. According to a Belgian statutory instrument of 19 July 1973 on the use of languages in the relationship between employers and employees (Belgisch Staatsblad 1973 p. 10089).

40. See also Court of Justice 22 October 1981, Jur. 2431 (27/81) IPRax 1982 no. 238, note Leipold, p. 222, Rohr v. Ossenberger, and Court of Justice 31 March 1982 (25/81) NJ 1982 no. 281 (answer to the last question).

41. See DC of Amsterdam 29 June 1976, NILR 1976 p. 359 and note.

42. Droz. pp. 72 and 77, and cf., DC of Amsterdam 19 January 1977 no. 576, NILR 1978 p. 85 and note.

43. Cf., Court of Justice 9 November 1981 (23/78) Jur. 2133, NILR 1981 p. 76, Meeth v. Glacetal.

44. This decision of the President of Breda has been reversed by the recently published decision of the CoA of 's-Hertogenbosch, of 25 June 1981 NJ 1983 308 note Schultsz, considering that Article 27 does not require the summons to mention that the damaged parties intend to file a civil claim. The possibility, that the damaged parties themselves notify their intention in some way, was not considered by the CoA.