Owusu, Lis Pedens and the Recent Recast of the Brussels I Regulation

• Author: Ivan Ovchinnikov
• Position: Senior Sophister LLB Candidate, Trinity College Dublin
• Pages: 40-70

© 2016 Ivan Ovchinnikov and Dublin University Law Society

OWUSU,LIS PENDENS AND THE RECENT

RECAST OF THE BRUSSELS IREGULATION

IVAN OVCHINNIKOV*

Introduction

In1968,theBrusselsConventionwasconcludedinordertofacilitatethe

reciprocalrecognitionandenforcementofjudgmentsofcourtsortribunals

amongcontractingstates.1ItwaslaterreplacedbytheBrusselsRegulation2

which,whilemakingcertainadjustments,replicatedthebulkofthe

Convention’sprovisions3andmadethesedirectlyapplicableinandbinding

onallEUMemberStates.4Likeitspredecessor,theRegulationaimedto

implementmeasuresrelatingtojudicialcooperationincivilmatters,which

werenecessaryforthesoundoperationoftheinternalmarket.5Specifically,

itsoughttoaddressthedifferencesinthenationalrulesgoverning

jurisdictionandtherecognitionofjudgments,whichimpededthefree

movementofjudgmentsbetweenMemberStates.6Therefore,the

Regulation’sobjectivewastounifythelawsrelatingtoconflictsof

jurisdictionincivilandcommercialmatters,inordertoestablish a rapidand

simplesystemfortherecognitionandenforcementofjudgmentsamongthe

MemberStates.7

However,itssomewhatmyopicfocusonMemberStatesalone

resultedin alacunaconcerningaffairsinvolvingstateswhicharenot

*Senior Sophister LLB Candidate, Trinity College Dublin. The author would like to dedicate

this article to his parents, Tatiana and Eduward Gendelman. The author would also like to thank

Dr Liz Heffernan and Tara Smyth for their helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier

draft of this article.

1 Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil

and Commercial Matters [hereinafter the Convention].

2 Council Regulation (EC) No44/2001/EC of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the

recognition and enforcement of judgments incivil and commercial matters, OJ L12/1

[hereinafter the Regulation].

3Please note that while a lot of the caselaw discussed in this work was decided under the terms

of the Convention, when addressing the provisions of the Convention this work refers tothe

corresponding provisions of the Regulation instead, for the sake of convenience.

4 Although Denmark initially opted out of the Regulation, it opted inat a later stage.

5 Recital (1) of the Regulation.

6 Recital (2) of the Regulation.

7Ibid.

2016] Owusu, Lis Pendens and the Recent Recast of the Brussels I Regulation!

41

membersoftheEuropeanUnion.ItisthislacunaoftheBrusselsRegime,

aswellastherecent“BrusselsRecast”seekingtoremedyit,thatisthefocus

ofthisarticle.Thelacunais aconsequenceandby-productofthe

Regulation’sprincipalobjectiveofensuringcertaintyinthesphereof

PrivateInternationalLaw.Thisaimofcertaintycanonlybeachievedvia

highlypredictablerules.8Therefore,theRegulationestablished ageneral

ruleofjurisdictionunderarticle 2 statingthat“subjecttothisRegulation,

personsdomiciledin aMemberStateshall,whatevertheirnationality,be

suedinthecourtsofthatMemberState”.InthecaseofOwusu v Jackson,9

theECJemphasisedthisarticle 2 asbeingmandatoryinnatureandthatno

derogationcouldbemadefrom theprincipleitlaysdown,exceptin

situationsexpresslyprovidedforelsewhereintheRegulation.10Itwasheld

thatthegoalsofuniformityandpredictabilityrequiredthisgeneralruleof

jurisdictioninarticle 2tobeappliedstrictlyandinflexibly.Themyopic

focusoftheRegulation’sprovisionsonMemberStates,togetherwiththis

inflexibilityofsaidprovisionswhichpreventsaninterpretativeextension

beyondtheirstrictconfines,causesparticularunfairnessincasesoflis

pendensinnon-MemberStatecourts.

Lispendensis asituationwherebythedisputebefore aforumis

alreadythesubjectofproceedingspendingbefore a courtofanotherState.

WhiletheRegulationestablishesanexpressexceptiontoarticle 2 whenthe

courtof aMemberStateisfacedwithlispendensinthecourtofanother

MemberState,itdoesnotcontainanyprovisionstodealwithsuch a lis

pendensin anon-MemberStatecourt.Article27statesthatwhere

proceedingsbetweenthesamepartiesandinvolvingthesamecauseof

actionarebroughtindifferentMemberStates,anycourtotherthanthecourt

firstseisedmuststayproceedings.Article28in a similarveinprovidesthat

whenconcurrentproceedingsinMemberStatecourtsarerelated(as

opposedtoidentical),11 anycourtotherthanthecourtfirstseisedmaystay

proceedings.Therefore,whiletheBrusselsRegulationenablescourtsto

effectivelydealwith a lispendensinanotherMemberState,itdoesnotdo

8 Recital (11) of the Regulation.

9 Case 281/02 [2005]ECR I – 1383 [hereinafter Owusu].

10 Case 281/02 [2005]ECR I – 1383, at 37. These exceptions are outlined in Chapter II of the

Regulation, and include the rules of exclusive jurisdiction under Article 22, choice-of-court

agreements under Article 23 and lis pendens under Articles 27-28.

11 Article 28(3) defines related actions asactions that are “so closely connected that itis

expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments

resulting from separate proceedings.”