¹ 2001 O.J. (L12)1.

² 2001 O.J. (LI74)1.

³ See Beaumont, Paul, The Brussels Convention Becomes a Regulation, in Reform and Development of Private International Law: Festschrift for Sir Peter North (Fawcett, J. ed., 2002)Google Scholar.

⁴ Article 1 of the Protocol on the Danish position regarding Title IV of the EC Treaty, 1997 OJ. (C340)101; see also Article 1(3) of the Regulation, 2001 O.J. (L12)3.

⁵ These two states have a more flexible protocol inserted to the EC Treaty that allows them to opt in to measures taken under Title IV EC, 1997 O.J. (C304)99. The United Kingdom’s position is “to review each proposed measure individually and opt in when it is in the interest of the U.K. to do so.” 622 Parl. Deb., H.L. (5th ser.) (2001) Wa152 (Written Answers, Thurs. Mar. 1, 2001, by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home office, Lord Bassam of Brighton). The Irish position is more favorable to private international law; its opt-out is mainly with regard to measures that would be incompatible with the Common Travel Area with the United Kingdom, and it has declared in its Protocol that it will take part in measures pursuant to Title ľV to the maximum extent compatible with this objective, see Declaration No. 4 by Ireland on Article 3 of the Protocol on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, 1997 O.J. (C340) 143. So far the United Kingdom and Ireland have opted in to all the Regulations adopted by the Community. With regard to Brussels I, see Commission Proposal for Brussels I Regulation, COM(1999) 348 final at 5. Commission proposal for Brussels I Regulation; Brussels II, Insolvency and Service of Documents Regulations, see Council Press Release 02-12-1999—Press: 386—Nr: 1346/99; and for the Taking Evidence Regulation, see Council Press Release 28-05-2001—Press: 203—Nr: 9118/01.

⁶ Revision of the Brussels Convention of 1968 and the Lugano Convention of 1988, Results achieved, Coreper/Council, 30 April 1999, JUSTCTV 60, Revised Meeting Document No 18, Working Party on Revision of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions, 9ťh Meeting, Brussels April 26, 1999. Treaty of Amsterdam Amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties Establishing the European Communities and Certain Related Acts, Oct. 2, 1997, OJ. (C340)1 (1997) [hereinafter Treaty of Amsterdam].

⁷ The last point is designed to deal with Scottish partnerships and other unincorporated associations that might have neither a registered office nor a place of incorporation.

⁸ Case 12/76 Tessili v. Dunlop [1976] ECR 1473. Tessili has been affirmed recently in Case C-440/97 Gie Groupe Concorde and Others v. The Master of the Vessel “Suhadiwarno Panjan” and Others, [1999] ECRI-6307.

⁹ Rome Convention, EC Convention on the Law Applicable to Constitutional Obligations, 1980, Art. 4. Commission Proposal on the Brussels I Regulation, COM(1999) 348 final at p. 14. The national courts have taken a flexible approach to the interpretation of Article 4(2) and (5) of the Rome Convention. Paragraph (2) sets out the presumption that the applicable law is that of the habitual residence of the person carrying out the characteristic performance under the contract; under paragraph (5) it is possible for the national courts to apply the law of another country if that country is more closely connected to the contract. Examples in 2001-2002 of using paragraph (5) of the Rome Convention in interpreting Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention to enable the English courts to exercise jurisdiction are Kenburn Waste Mgmt. Ltd. v. Heinz Bergmann [2001] WL 720311 (Ch. 11 May 2001) on appeal, 2002 WL 45282 (CA. 30 Jan. 2002); Definitely Maybe (Touring) Ltd. v. Marek Lieberberg Konzertagentur, 1 W.L.R. 1745 (Q.B. 2001).

¹⁰ See Case 129/83 Zeiger v. Salinitri No. 2, [ 1984] ECR 2397. There has been discussion on when the proceedings pending in the U.K. case law in 2001. Most of these cases have used very extensive research on evidence on the foreign law. See Jonathan Guy Anthony Phillips & Other v. Robin James Symes & Robin Symes Ltd., Hc0100810, 2001 WL 720317 (Ch. 9 July 2001); Knauf UK GmbH v. British Gypsum Ltd. and Others (CA, October 24), 1 Lloyd’S Rep. 1999 (2001).

¹¹ Recital 13, 2001 O.J. (L12)2.

¹² Articles 18-24, 2001 O.J. (L12) at 7-8. The approach to the question of employment contracts has almost gone full circle. In the draft Brussels Convention in the 1960s, employment contracts were dealt with under the exclusive jurisdiction of the contracting state where the undertaking is situated or where the work was performed or was to have been performed. See Avant-projetdeconvention concernant la compétence judiciaire, la reconnaissance et l’exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale et l’exécution des actes authentiques, Commission, COM 14371/IV/64. In the final version of the Brussels Convention in 1968 employment contracts were included in the same provision as other contracts, Article 5(1), without any protective or exclusive jurisdiction see Jenard Report on the Brussels Convention, 1978 O.J. (C59) 24.

¹³ Article 20, O.J. (L12) at 7.

¹⁴ Article 21, O.J. (L12) at7.

¹⁵ Article 19, O.J. (L12) at7.

¹⁶ Article 18, O.J. (L12) at7.

¹⁷ Article 21, O.J. (L12) at 7.

¹⁸ Article 9(1) (6), O.J. (L12) at 5.

¹⁹ See Article 15, O.J. (L12) at 6. It is likely that the same result would have been arrived at under Article 13 of the Brussels Convention anyway. See, e.g., Stone, Peter, Internet Consumer Contracts and European Private International Law, 9 Info. & Comm. Tech. 5, 8 (2000)Google Scholar.

²⁰ Article 34, Brussels Convention.

²¹ Article 43, O.J. (L12) at 11.

²² Article 34(1), O.J. (L12) at 10. This formulation had been adopted in Article 16 of the Rome Convention.

²³ Article 34(2), O.J. (L12) at 10. Itreverses Case C-123/91, Minalmet GmbH v. Brandeis Ltd., [1992] ECR 1-5661 (holding that under the equivalent provision in the Brussels Convention, although the defendant was aware of the proceedings in the court of origin, the European Court would permit the nonrecognition of the judgment because there was no proper service).

²⁴ See P. North, The Draft UK/US Judgments Convention: A British Viewpoint, in Essays in Private International Law 201-23 (1993).

²⁵ Council Regulation (EC) No. 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the member states in taking evidence in civil or commercial matters, 2001 O.J. 2001 (L174)01.

²⁶ Council Regulation (EC) No. 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the member states of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil and commercial matters, 2000 O.J. (L160)37.

²⁷ Initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany with a view to adopting a Council Regulation on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters, Oj 2000/C314/01.

²⁸ Tampere Conclusions, Bulletin EU 10-99, point 30. Steps have also been planned in the area of legal aid in civil matters. See Commission Green Paper, Legal Aid in Civil Matters: The Problems Confronting the Cross-Border Litigant, COM (2000) 51 final.

²⁹ 2000 O.J. (L160)37.

³⁰ Article 1, O.J. (L174)at3.

³¹ Article 2, O.J. (L174) at 3.

³² Article 3, O.J. (L174) at 3.

³³ Article 5, O.J. (L174) at 4.

³⁴ Article 3, O.J. (L174) at 3.

³⁵ Articles 1 and 2 of the Hague Evidence Convention, in 23 UST 2555, see the Hague Conference Web site, at <http://www.hcch.net>.

³⁶ Article 27, Hague Convention, 23 UST.

³⁷ Article 5, O.J. (L174) at 4.

³⁸ The same provisions are set out also in the Service of Documents Regulation. So far only Finland has declared that it will accept English in addition to the official languages of the country, Finnish and Swedish. First update of the information communicated by the member states pursuant to Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1348/2000 of May 29, 2000, on the service in the member states of judicial and extra-judicial documents in civil or commercial matters, 2001 O.J. (C202) 10. The same approach can be presumed to apply with regard to the evidence regulation.

³⁹ Case C-518/99, Gaillard v. Chekili, [2001] ECR I-2771.

⁴⁰ Id. para. 13 of the judgment (relying on Case C-115/88, Reichertv. Kockler, [1990] ECR I-27, at para. 8).

⁴¹ Id., para. 14 of the judgment (citing Case 73/77, Sanders v. Van der Putte, [1977] ECR 2383 at paras. 17, and 18; Reichert, supra note 40 at para. 9; Case C-292/93, Lieber v. Göbel, [1994] ECR 1-2535 at para. 12; and Case C-8/98, Dansommer, [2000] ECR 1-393 at para. 21).

⁴² Reichert, supra note 40.

⁴³ Gaillard, supra note 39, para. 17.

⁴⁴ Id. at paras. 17, 20.

⁴⁵ Id. at paras, 18, 19, 20.