* [Reproduced from the Official Journal of the European Communities, C 189, Volume 33, July 28, 1990, pp. 35-122. The first report addresses the 1968 Brussels Convention and adjustments made to it following the accession of various members of the European Communities; the second report addresses the 1988 Lugano Convention.

[A consolidated and updated version of the 1968 Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters and the Protocol of 1971, following the 1989 accession of Spain and Portugal, appears at 29 I.L.M. 1413 (1990). The 1988 Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, which extends the principles of the Brussels Convention to the States becoming parties to it, appears at 28 I.L.M. 620 (1989).]

1 he Convention was published in OJ No L 299. 31 12.1972. It was accompanied by aa explanatory report drawn up by Mr P. Jenara published in OJ No C 59. 5.3. 1979. hereinafter referred to at Ike Jenard Report.

2 The Protocol wa* published in OJ No L 204. 2.1. 1975.For its scope, sec Jenard Report, pp. 66 to 70.

(3) For a fuller account of these principles, ice Jenard-Moller Report, paragraph 13. Details of that report are given in footnote 5 on page 39.

(1) This Convention, signed in Luxembourg on 9 Ocotber 1978. was published in OJ No L 304. 30.10. 1978. It was the subject of a report drawn up by Prof. P. Schlosser, published in OJ No C 59, 5.3. 1979, hereinafter referred to as the Schlosser Report.

(2) Published in OJ No L 388,31.12. 1912. It is accompanied by an explanatory report drawn up by Professors D. Evri-genis and K. D. Kcrameus. published in OJ No C 298, 24.11. 1986, hereinafter referred to as the Evrigenis-Kera-meus Report.

(3) For the convenience of practitioners, an unofficial consolidated version of the three Conventions (1968, 1978 and 1982) was drawn up by the Council General Secretariat and published in OJ No C 97. 11.4. 1983. A table giving the dates of publication of the various instruments is provided in Annex I to this report.

(4) Present EFT A membership: Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.

(5) Published in OJ No L 319, 25. 11. 1988. The Convention is accompanied by an explanatory report drawn up jointly by Mr P. Jenard and Mr G. Moller. hereinafter referred to as the Jenard-Moller Report.

(6) See paragraph 4 above.

(7) Article 54 b sutes: 'I. This Convention shall not prejudice the application by tbe Member States of the European Communities of the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed at Brussels on 27 September 1968 and of the Protocol on interpretation of diat Convention by the Court of Justice, signed at Luxembourg on 3 June 1971, as amended by the Conventions of Accession to the said Convention and the said Protocol by the Sutes acceding to the European Communities, all of these Conventions and the Protocol being hereinafter referred to as tbe ‘Brussels Convention'. 2. However, this Convention shall in any event be applied: (a) in maners of jurisdiction, where the defendant is domiciled in the territory of a Contracting State which is not a member of the European Communities, or where Articles 16 or 17 of this Convention confer a jurisdiction on the courts of such a Contracting State; (b)in relation to a to provided to related actions as provided for in Articles 21 and 22, when proceedings are instituted in a Contracting State which is not a member of the European Communities and in a Contracting State which is a member of the European Communities:(c)in maners of recognition and enforcement, where either the State of origin or die Stale addressed is not a member of the European Communities.

(1/) See OJ No L 302, 15. II. 1985

(1) For the list of participants, see Annex II.

(1) Article 1482: of the Spanish Civil Code : The purchaser against whom an action for eviction is brought shall request, within the period specified by the Code of Civil Procedure for replying to the action, that it be served on the vendors) as soon as possible. Service shall be in the manner specified in the said Code for service on defendants.The time limit for reply by the purchaser shall be suspended until the expiry of the period notified to the vendors) for appearing and replying to the action, which shall correspond to the periods laid down for all defendants by toe Code of Civil Procedure and shall run from the date of the service referred to in the Tint paragraph of this Article.If those cited in eviction proceedings fail to appear in the manner and time specified, the period allowed for replying to the action shall be extended in respect of the purchaser.'

(1) The term ‘place of business’, as in the Lugano Convention, is to be understood in the broad sense: in particular, it covers any entity such as a branch or agency with no legal personality (see Jenard-Moller Report, paragraph 43). On the concept of ‘place of business’ see also the judgments of the Court of Justice of 22 November 1978 (Somafer v. Ferngas, Case 33/78, ECR 1978, pp. 2183-2195) and 19 December 1987 (Schotte v. Rothschild, Case 218/86, OJ No C 2. 6. I. 1988, p. 3).

(1) See judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 November 1979 in Case 25/79. Sanicentral v. Collin, ECR 1979. pp. 3423 to 3431.

(1) Article 60 here means Article 60 of the 1968 Convention, as modified by Article 27 of the 1978 Convention.

(1) The Six: Belgium, Federal Republic of Germany, France, luly, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.