¹ Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters: ECJ Judgments (P. Galizzi ed., 2002).Google Scholar

² Case C-133/08 Intercontainer Interfrigo (ICF) SC v. Balkenende Oosthuizen BV and MIC Operations BV, 2009 E.C.R. I-0000Google Scholar

³ G. de Groot and J. Kuipers, The New Provisions on Private International Law in the Treaty of Lisbon, 15 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law No. 1 109 (2008).Google Scholar

⁴ The Brussels I Regulation applies to disputes arisen after 1 March 2002, whereas the Rome I Regulation will apply to contracts concluded after 17 December 2009. For the sake of simplicity, references to the Brussels and Rome Convention will be made as if it were to the Brussels I and Rome I Regulation. It will be indicated when a discrepancy between a provision in the Convention and Regulation exists.Google Scholar

⁵ T. Hartley, The Modern Approach to Private International Law: International Litigation and Transactions from a Common-Law Perspective: General Course on Private International Law, 9 Recueil des Cours No. 319, 183 (2006).Google Scholar

⁶ P. Gothot and D. Holleaux, La Convention de Bruxelles du 27.9.1968 (1985); A. Dashwood, R. Hacon and R. White, A Guide to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Convention (1987); P. Byrne, The EEC Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments (1990).Google Scholar

⁷ Report on the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1979) (Jenard Report), OJ C 59,.3.Google Scholar

⁸ Case 38/81, Effer, 1982 E.C.R. 825, par. 6; case C-440/97 GIE Groupe Concorde and Others, 1999 E.C.R. I-6307, par. 23; case C-256/00 Besix 2002 E.C.R. I-1699, par. 24.Google Scholar

⁹ Case C-7/98 Krombach, 2000 E.C.R. I-1935; Case C-394/07 Gambazzi,2009 E.C.R. I-0000, see as well: Court of Appeal Maronier v Larmer 2002 EWCA Civ 774.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See the 3^rd preamble to the Rome Convention.Google Scholar

¹¹ J. Jacquet, Le Contrat International 37 (1992); P. Nygh, Autonomy in International Contracts (1999); E. O'Hara and L. Ribstein, From Politics to Efficiency in Choice of Law, George Mason Law and Economics Working Paper No. 00-04 (1999); H. Muir Watt, Choice of Law in Integrated and Interconnected Markets: A Matter of Political Economy, 7 Electronic Journal of Comparative Law No. 3 (2003), available at: http://www.ejcl.org/ejcl/73/art73-4.html, last accessed: 29 October 2009; S. Leible, Parteiautonomie im IPR – Allgemeines Anknüpfungsprinzip oder Verlegenheitslösung?, in Festschrift für Erik Jayme, Band I, München: Sellier, 485–503 (2004); G. Rühl, Party Autonomy in the Private International Law of Contracts: Transatlantic Convergence and Economic Efficiency, 3 CLPE Research Paper No. 1 4 (2007).Google Scholar

¹² Enforcement of International Contracts in the European Union: Convergence and divergence between Brussels I and Rome I (J. Meeusen, M. Pertegás and G. Straetmans eds., 2004); S. Rammeloo, Via Romana. Van EVO naar Rome I – Nieuw Europees IPR inzake het recht dat van toepassing is op verbintenissen uit overeenkomst, 24 Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht No. 3, 239–253 (2006).Google Scholar

¹³ Case C-440/97 GIE Groupe Concorde and Others v The Master of the Vessel Suhadiwarno Panjan and Others, 1999 E.C.R. I-6307.Google Scholar

¹⁴ P. Kaye, Civil Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Abingdon: Professional Books Limited 1031–1115 (1987); L. Mari, Il Diritto Processuale Civile della Convenzione di Bruxelles 564–568 (1999); J. Kropholler, Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht, Heidelberg: Verlag Recht und Wirtschaft, 7. Auflage 269–317 (2002); P. Vittoria, La competenza giurisdizionale e l'esecuzione delle decisioni in material civile e commercial nella giurisprudenza della corte di giustizia 210–220 (2005); Brussels I Regulation 366–448 (U. Magnus and P. Mankowski eds., 2007).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Sub c was only introduced in the 1978 Amendment to the Brussels Convention.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Art. 23 (2) Brussels I.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Case C-269/95 Benincasa 1997 E.C.R. I-3767Google Scholar

¹⁸ Case 24/76 Salotti, 1976 E.C.R. 1831.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Case C-214/89 Powell Duffryn, 1992 E.C.R. I-1745, para 14Google Scholar

²⁰ Case C-106/95 MSG v Les Gravières Rhénanes SARL, 1997 E.C.R. I-911.Google Scholar

²¹ Supra note 18.Google Scholar

²² Case 221/84 Berghoefer, 1985 E.C.R. 2699.Google Scholar

²³ Case 313/85 Iveco Fiat SpAv Van Hool NV, 1986 E.C.R. 3337.Google Scholar

²⁴ See for example: Corte Suprema di Cassazione, 22 January 2002, 718/2002. The precise requirements need further clarification: B. Hess et al, General Report of the Study on the Application of Regulation Brussels I (Heidelberg Report), Study JLS/C4/2005/03 (2007), 161.Google Scholar

²⁵ Case C-387/98 Coreck Maritime GmbH v Handelsveem BV, 2000 E.C.R. I-9337. This led to a change of case-law in France: Cour de Cassation, 16 December 2008, 08–10460.Google Scholar

²⁶ Case C-116/02 Gasser, 2003 E.C.R. I-14693.Google Scholar

²⁷ Dicey, Morris & Collins: The Conflict of Laws, 14^th edition 1560–1580 (L. Collins ed., 2006); H. Heiss, Party Autonomy, in Rome I Regulation: The Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations in Europe 1 (F. Ferrari & S. Leible eds., 2009); R. Plender and M. Wilderspin, The European Private International Law of Obligations, 3^rd edition 131–166 (2009),.Google Scholar

²⁸ Art. 11 (1) Rome IGoogle Scholar

²⁹ Art. 11 (2) Rome IGoogle Scholar

³⁰ M. Magagni, La Prestazione Caratteristica nella Convenzione di Roma del 19 Giugno 1980 17 (1989); F. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 213 (1993); P. Mankowski, Stillschweigende Rechtswahl und wählbares Recht, in Das Grünbuch zum Internationalen Vertragsrecht 63 (S. Leible ed., 2004).Google Scholar

³¹ Other possible indicators are listed in: P. Nygh, Autonomy in International Contracts 113–120 (1999).Google Scholar

³² For example: Bundesgerichtshof 26 June 2004, VIII ZR 273/03.Google Scholar

³³ The 12^th recital in the preamble to the Rome I Regulation identifies an exclusive choice of court clause as one of the factors to be taken into account in determining whether a choice of law has been clearly demonstrated. Art. 3 (1) Proposal for a Regulation on the Law applicable to contractual obligations, COM (2005) 650 final even raised in these circumstances a presumption.Google Scholar

³⁴ Art. 18 Brussels Convention. Art. 18 has been applied to generate jurisdiction for a claim for set-off made by the defendant on the basis of a contract containing an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of another court. Case 48/84 Hannelore Spitzley v Sommer Exploitation SA, 1985 E.C.R. 787.Google Scholar

³⁵ Case 150/80 Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Jacqmain, 1981 E.C.R. 1671, par. 15; case 25/81 C.H.W. v G.J.H., 1981 E.C.R. 01189; case 27/81 Rohr v Ossberger, 1981 E.C.R. 825, par. 7.Google Scholar

³⁶ The German party can only hope that the French party honours its word and does not challenge the jurisdiction of the Amsterdam court. The Amsterdam court could then assume jurisdiction on the basis of appearance (art. 24 Brussels I).Google Scholar

³⁷ L. Merrett, Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation: A Comprehensive Code for Jurisdiction Agreements, 58 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 545 (2009).Google Scholar

³⁸ Z. Tang, The interrelationship of European Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in Contract, 4 Journal of Private International Law No. 1 35, 46 (2008).Google Scholar

³⁹ Powell Duffryn, supra, note 19, 15.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ In favour: supra, note 38, See, infra, note 45; against: see, supra, note 377, 557–559.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Art. 10 (2) Rome I.Google Scholar

⁴² 13^th recital to the preamble of Rome I.Google Scholar

⁴³ See, supra, note 25, 18.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Case C-281/02 Owusu v Jackson, 2005 E.C.R. I-1383.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Opposite view: A. Briggs, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law 291 (2008). National courts have taken different views on the matter, see: T. Kruger, Civil Jurisdiction Rules of the EU and their Impact on Third States 234–245 (2008),.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ The author wishes to add that this appears to him the most likely interpretation of Community law as it stands, but that this does necessarily reflect his personal views on the feasibility of this interpretation.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See, supra, note 266.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Art. 28 Brussels I.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ However, according to Nuyts the criticism to Gasser is exaggerated because the Court could not rule on a possible abuse of rights. A. Nuyts, Enforcement of Jurisdiction Agreements Further to Gasser, in Forum Shopping in the European Judicial Area, 55, (P. de Vareilles-Sommières ed., 2007).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ M. Franzosi, Worldwide Patent Litigation and the Italian Torpedo, 19 European Intellectual Property law Review No. 7 382 (2005); I. Betti, The Italian torpedo is dead: long live the Italian torpedo, 3 Journal of Intellectual Property law & Practice No. 1 6–7 (2008).Google Scholar

⁵¹ T. Hartley, The European Union and the Systematic Dismantling of the Common Law Conflict of Laws, 54 International law Comparative Quarterly No. 4 813 (2005). J. Harris, Understanding the English response to the Europeanisation of Private International Law, 4 Journal of Private International law No. 3 347 (2008).Google Scholar

⁵² Case C-185/07 West Tankers, 2009 E.C.R. I-0000. Academic views were expressed in a special online symposium available at: http://conflictoflaws.net/2009/west-tankers-online-symposium, last accessed 29 October 2009.Google Scholar

⁵³ See, id para. 26. For a critical view see, Martin George, Dickinson on West Tankers Another One Bites the Dust, available at http://conflictoflaws.net/2009/dickinson-on-west-tankers-another-one-bites-the-dust/ Last accessed 29 October 2009.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Case C⍰351/89 Overseas Union Insurance and Others, 1991 E.C.R. I-3317, par. 24; Case C-159/02 Turner, 2004 E.C.R. I⍰03565, par. 26.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Gilles Cuniberti, Kessedjian on West Tankers, available at http://conflictoflaws.net/2009/kessedjian-on-west-tankers/ last accessed 29 October 2009.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Heidelberg Report, 167–168.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ EC No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000, Hearing of with a view to the forthcoming review of Council Regulation on the Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Brussels 9 February 2009, 5836/09.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ C. Knight, The Damage of Damages: Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law, 4 Journal of Private International Law 3 501, 507 (2008).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ D. Kennedy, The Stages of Decline of the Public/Private Distinction, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1349 (1982); M. Loughlin, The idea of public law (2004); D. Wyatt, Horizontal Effect of Fundamental Freedoms and the Right to Equality after Viking and Mangold, and the Implications for Community Competence, Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 20/2008.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Supra, note 45 Kruger at 237.Google Scholar

⁶¹ D. Caruso, The Missing View of the Cathedral: The Private Law Paradigm of European Legal Integration, no. 9, Jean Monnet Working Papers (1996); J. Baquero Cruz, Free Movement and Private Autonomy, 24 European Law Review No. 6 603 (1999).Google Scholar

⁶² Case 22/85 Antérist v Crédit Lyonnais, 1986 E.C.R. 1951, paras. 13 and 14.Google Scholar

⁶³ J. Kuipers, Cartesio and Grunkin-Paul: Mutual recognition as a vested rights theory based on party autonomy in private law, in European Journal of Legal Studies (forthcoming).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ A. Marmisse, Autonomie de la volonté et principe de proximité dans Bruxelles I et Rome I, in Enforcement of International Contracts in the European Union: Convergence and divergence between Brussels I and Rome I, Antwerpen: Intersentia 255 (J. Meeusen, M. Pertegás and G. Straetmans eds., 2004),.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Case 266/85 Shenavai v Kreischer, 1987 E.C.R. 239, par. 17; Case C-280/90 Hacker, 1992 E.C.R. I-1111, par. 15; case C-73/04 Klein, 2005 E.C.R. 1-8667, par. 15.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ ICF (note 2).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ J. Kuipers, The Rome I Regulation: Ending the contradictory interpretation by national courts of art. 4 (5) Rome Convention?, 1 Prague Yearbook of Comparative Law (2009), forthcoming.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Case 381/98 Ingmar, 2000 E.C.R. I-9305.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Rechtbank Arnhem (District Court) 11 July 1991, 10 Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 100 (1992).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Cour de Cassation, 28 November 2000, No. 98 – 11.335.Google Scholar

⁷¹ S. Francq, L'applicabilite du droit Communautaire derive au regard des methodes du droit international prive (2005).Google Scholar

⁷² H. Verhagen, Het spanningsveld tussen de vrijheid van rechtskeuze en het communautaire harmonisatie-proces, 19 Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht No. 1 27 (2001); R. Michaels and H. Kamann, Grundlagen eines allgemeinen gemeinschaftlichten Richtlinienkollisionsrechts – “Amerikanisierung” des Gemeinschafts-IPR?, 12 Europäisches Wirtschafts- & Steuerrecht No. 6 301 (2001); S. Schwarz, Das internationale Handelsvertreterrecht im Lichte von “Ingmar” – Droht das Ende der Parteiautonomie im Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht?, 101 Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 45 (2002); H. Verhagen, The tension between party autonomy and European Union law: some observations on Ingmar, International Law and Comparative Law Quarterly 135 (2002).Google Scholar

⁷³ Case 398/92 Mund & Fester, 1994 E.C.R. I-467, par. 19. The statement of the ECJ with regard to the Brussels Convention can also be applied to Rome I.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ E. Jayme and C. Kohler, L'interaction des règles de conflit contenues dans le droit dérivé de la Communauté européene et des conventions de Bruxelles et de Rome, 84 Revue Critique de Droit International Prive No. 1 1, 16 (1995).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ A. Dickinson, Legal Certainty and the Brussels Convention – Too Much of a Good Thing?, in Forum Shopping in the European Judicial Area 115 (P. de Vareilles-Sommières eds., 2007).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Case C-148/02 Garcia Avello 2003 E.C.R. I-11613.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Case C-353/06 Grunkin Paul, 2008 E.C.R. I-0000.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Case C-212/97 Centros, 1999 E.C.R. I-1459.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Case C-208/00 Überseering 2002 E.C.R. I-9919.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Supra, note 633.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Although the review clause of art. 27 (1b) only mentions the interface between consumer directives and art. 6 Rome I Regulation (protective connecting factor for consumers), it will most likely have to deal with wider issues.Google Scholar