The decision by the Court of Appeal in Lewis v Eliades1 dealt for the first time in the English courts with the question of whether a foreign judgment regularly obtained and otherwise enforceable by common law action, could be enforced in England where a part of the judgment was for treble damages

There has been much activity since the last report on this topic,1 not least that the citizenship provisions of the Treaty have burst into life with a series of cases and proposals which threaten to overturn the old order. The Commission's initial proposal2 to consolidate and radically reshape rights of residence has been revised in the legislative process,3 but is still un-adopted; the cases though are more dramatic.

In its decision in the Arrest Warrant case,2 the International Court of Justice studiedly refused to address systematically the legality and ambit of a purported exercise in absentia of universal criminal jurisdiction by one State over a government minister of another State. This, coupled with the dicta of certain judges with reservations as to the scope of universal jurisdiction3 and the (at best) lukewarm support for such jurisdiction displayed by certain other judges,4 might be taken as a discouragement to States to engage in similar exercises of jurisdiction. However, the contemporary trend in many developed States in favour of taking measures of extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction to apprehend and punish the alleged perpetrators of serious international law crimes, coupled with the entry into force of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, indicates that more such attempts are quite likely to be made. Within a year of its decision in the Arrest Warrant case, the ICJ again found itself the forum for a similar dispute. On 9 December 2002 the Republic of the Congo (‘the Congo’) filed an Application instituting proceedings against France5 in circumstances notably resembling those that had prompted the Democratic Republic of the Congo (‘the DRC’) to act against Belgium. Again, the Applicant was an African State protesting against an alleged abuse of universal jurisdiction and failure to respect immunities on the part of its European former colonial ruler. Despite the prima facie similarity between the two cases, however, the chances that the eventual decision in the Certain Criminal Proceedings case will go beyond the Arrest Warrant case to elucidate the doctrine of universal jurisdiction are very slight. This note is confined to considering the circumstances behind the Congolese Application and Request for the Indication of a Provisional Measure, and the Court's response thereto in its Order of 17 June 2003.

On 6 November 2003 the International Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the Case Concerning Oil Platforms,1 which involves multiple aspects of international law, most notably the issues of treaty interpretation, use of force, hierarchy of norms and the nature of international judicial competence. The case arose out of forcible action by US naval forces in the Persian Gulf against certain Iranian oil platforms.

EC intellectual property law has now reached a significant level of harmonization, and the Community can take pride in its achievements in this respect. The need to report a wealth of new matters leaves little space for introduction. However, two issues may be highlighted here briefly. The first is that in May 2004 ten new Member States will join the EU. Although enlargement offers immense opportunities, it also presents a considerable practical challenge. The second is the Commission's plan for a directive to harmonize procedure and remedies for intellectual property infringement throughout the EU.1 It seeks to go further than the ground rules on enforcement already laid down by TRIPs, and to lay down specific procedural codes for intellectual property infringement of all types—not merely piracy and counterfeiting. This enthusiasm for intervention in the procedural aspects of national law has raised serious concerns in some quarters.

This case deals with the use of the English law anti-suit injunction in combination with the Brussels Convention.2 That Convention has since been replaced by the so-called Brussels I Regulation.3 The Regulation kept the structure and basic rules of the Convention so that this judgment will stay effective and the rule established by it will apply equally under the Regulation.

1. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro).

The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina instituted proceedings against Yugoslavia on 20 March 1993 alleging violations of the 1949 Genocide Convention and requesting an indication of provisional measures which was made in an order of 8 April 1993.1 This was reaffirmed in an order of 13 September 1993,2 following a second request for provisional measures made by Bosnia and Herzegovina on 27 July 1993 and a request made by Yugoslavia on 10 August 1993.3 By an order of 16 April 19934 the following time limits were set for the filing of the written pleadings: Bosnia and Herzegovina, memorial, 15 October 1993; Yugoslavia, counter-memorial, 15 April 1994. By an order of 7 October 19935 these were extended to: Bosnia and Herzegovina, memorial, 15 April 1994; Yugoslavia, counter-memorial, 15 April 1995 and, by order of 21 March 1995,6 the date for the submission of the Yugoslavian counter-memorial was again extended to 30 June 1995. On 26 June 1995 Yugoslavia submitted preliminary objections which were rejected by the Court in its order of 11 July 1996.7 By an order of 23 July 19968 the time limit for filing the Yugoslav counter-memorial was fixed as 23 July 1997. The counter-memorial was filed on 22 July 1997 and contained counterclaims against Bosnia and Herzegovina and, in an order of 17 December 1997,9 the Court held them to be admissible and that they formed a part of the current proceedings. These counter-claims were subsequently withdrawn at the request of Bosnia and Herzegovina, this being noted by the Court in its order of 10 September 2001.10 The order of 17 December 199711 set the following time limits for the written pleadings on the merits: Bosnia and Herzegovina, reply, 23 January,1998; Yugoslavia, rejoinder, 23 July 1998. By an order of 22 January 199812 these were extended to: Bosnia and Herzegovina, reply, 23 April 1998; Yugoslavia, rejoinder, 22 January 1999. By an order of 11 December 199813 the time limit for the submission of the Yugoslav rejoinder was further extended, to 22 February 1999.

Citizenship and human rights continue to play an important role in the evolution of Community law. Both sets of principles have appeared in the case law of the European Courts and in the creation of a Constitutional document for Europe. Part II of the draft Constitution incorporates the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union. Additionally, the first report from the independent network of experts in fundamental human rights details the various international human rights obligations which the Member States are subject to, analysing Member State policy in a number of areas in the light of the international obligations.1 Paradoxically, at a time when greater emphasis is being paid to the constitutional recognition of human rights there are indications of divisions between some of the Advocates General, the Court of First Instance and the European Court of Justice (the Court) on the constitutional role of fundamental rights in relation to access to justice.

At the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council meeting in Brussels on 2 and 3 October 2003 final political agreement was reached on a new and expanded version of the Brussels II Regulation, a text which has commonly become known as Brussels II bis. The instrument, which was adopted by the JHA ministers on 27 November, has now received formal classification as Council Regulation No 2201/2003 Concerning Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and Matters Relating to Parental Responsibility Repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000.1 The net result of this precipitous reform is that Brussels JJ shall cease to have effect from 1 May 2005,2 a mere 4 years and 2 months after it entered into force. Henceforth there will be a single, integrated instrument which will cover, inter alia, the free movement of judgments in matters of parental responsibility as well as of matrimonial judgments and introduce provisions on cooperation between Member States.

1. On 5 August 2003 Liberia presented an Application against Sierra Leone regarding a dispute concerning an international arrest warrant issued by the Special Court for Sierra Leone against the President of Liberia. Since the applicant seeks to found the Court's jurisdiction on the consent of the respondent State (which is yet to be given), the application has not been entered into the Court's General List but has been transmitted to the Government of Sierra Leone.66

The Court of Appeal (Pill and Waller LJJ and Sir Martin Nourse) has considered interesting jurisdiction issues arising out of a projects dispute between a Pakistani company (‘Sabah’) and the Government of Pakistan (the ‘GOP’). The Court gave welcome guidance on the principles underlying the grant of anti-suit injunctions in cases where the parties have agreed to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. However, questions of how an anti-suit injunction obtained against a State may be enforced largely remain unanswered.

The texts of two brief judgments by district judges at Bow Street are reproduced below. In each case, an application was made for proceedings against a serving foreign official to answer allegations in England of conduct which constituted crimes against international law which were within the jurisdiction of the English court, even though committed abroad and by non-UK nationals. In each case, the judge decided that the official was protected by the law of State immunity rationae personae against the proceedings and the applications were dismissed.