BETA

Activities of Diana WALLIS related to 2010/0383(COD)

Shadow reports (1)

2016/11/22
Committee: JURI
Dossiers: 2010/0383(COD)
Documents: PDF(561 KB) DOC(569 KB)

Legal basis opinions (0)

Amendments (27)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2

2. Persons ~~not~~ domiciled in a~~ny of the~~ Member States may ~~be sued in the courts of a Member State only by virtue~~also avail themselves of the rules set out in Sections 2 to 8 of this Chapter as against a defendant not domiciled in a Member State.

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Without prejudice to paragraph 2 and subject to Articles 22 and 23, the jurisdiction of the courts of each Member State as against a defendant not domiciled in a Member State shall be determined by the law of the Member State concerned.

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. As against a defendant not domiciled in a Member State, persons domiciled in a Member State may, whatever their nationality, avail themselves in that Member State of the rules of jurisdiction there in force in the same way as nationals of that Member State.

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – point 2 a (new)

2a. in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict arising out of environmental damage or damage sustained by persons or property as a result of such damage, the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur, unless the person seeking compensation for damage chooses to sue in the courts for the place where the event giving rise to the damage occurred, including the place where the decision leading to the tort, delict or quasi-delict was adopted;

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – point 1

1. where he is ~~domiciled in a Member State and is~~ one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings;

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8

In matters relating to insurance, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section, without prejudice to Article 4(2a) and point 5 of Article 5.

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – introductory wording

1. In matters relating to a contract concluded by a person, the consumer, for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section, without prejudice to Article 4(2a) and point 5 of Article 5, if:

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1

1. In matters relating to individual contracts of employment, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section, without prejudice to Article 4(2a), point 5 of Article 5 and point 1 of Article 6~~(1)~~.

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – introductory wording

The following courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction regardless of domicile:

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – introductory wording

Where no court of a Member State has jurisdiction in accordance with Articles 25 to 24, ~~jurisdiction shall lie with~~ the courts of ~~the~~a Member State ~~where property belonging to the defendant is located, provided that~~shall have jurisdiction as against a defendant domiciled in a Member State:

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – point a

~~(a) the value of the property is not disproportionate to the value of the claim; an~~deleted

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – point b

~~(b) the dispute has a sufficient connection with the Member State of the court seis~~deleted.

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)

1. in matters relating to a contract concluded with a defendant who pursues commercial or professional activities, or who by any means directs such activities to that Member State or to several States including that Member State, if the contract falls within the scope of those activities; 2. in matters relating to a non-contractual obligation which is closely connected with the defendant's commercial or professional activities in, or directed to, that Member State or to several States including that Member State; 3. in matters relating to a non-contractual obligation which is closely connected with a contract between the parties, if the court of that Member State has jurisdiction in matters relating to that contract under point 1 of Article 5; 4. in matters relating to a contract, if the law of that Member State has been chosen by the parties to govern the contract between them.

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – introductory wording

Where no court of a Member State has jurisdiction under this Regulation, the courts of a Member State ~~may~~shall have jurisdiction, on an exceptional basis, ~~hear the cas~~as against a defendant domiciled in a Member State if the right to a fair trial or the right to access to justice so requires, in particular:

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – final wording

and the ~~dispute has a sufficient connection with~~claimant is domiciled in the Member State of the court seised.

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. The courts of a Member State whose jurisdiction is contested on the ground that the parties have agreed that the court or courts of another Member State are to have exclusive jurisdiction under Article 23(1) shall, unless their own jurisdiction is based on Article 22 or Article 23, stay proceedings once the court or courts of the Member State which are claimed to have been chosen are seised of proceedings to determine, as their main object or as an incidental question, the existence, validity or effects of the choice of court agreement with respect to the dispute between the parties concerned. This paragraph shall apply regardless of which court was first seised. This paragraph shall not apply in relation to disputes concerning matters referred to in Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Chapter II.

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 2

2. With the exception of agreements governed by Sections 3, 4 and 5 of this Chapter, where an agreement referred to in Article 23 confers exclusive jurisdiction to a court or the courts of a Member State, the courts of other Member States shall have no jurisdiction over the dispute until such time as the court or courts designated in the agreement decline their jurisdiction.deleted

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – introductory wording

1. Notwithstanding the rules in Articles 3 to 7, if either proceedings in relation to the same cause of action and between the same parties ~~are pending~~or related proceedings are pending at the same time before the courts of a third State a~~t a time whe~~nd a court in a Member State ~~is seised, that court may~~, the latter court may, on the application of a party, stay its proceedings if:

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – point a

~~(a) the court of the third State was seised first in time;~~deleted

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) it may be expected that the court in the third State will, within a reasonable time, render a judgment that will be capable of recognition and, where applicable, enforcement in that Member State, except where there are sufficient assets located in the third State to satisfy a judgment given in favour of the claimant; and

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) the court ~~is satisfied that it is necessary for the proper administration of justice to do so~~of the Member State is satisfied that to stay the proceedings before it is in the interests of justice and the courts of the third State are clearly more appropriate to determine the case than the forum courts.

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 4

4. The court shall dismiss the proceedings upon application by either party ~~or of its own motion~~ if the proceedings in the court of the third State are concluded and have resulted in a judgment enforceable in that State, or capable of recognition and, where applicable, enforcement in the Member State.

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. The sets of proceedings referred to in paragraph 1 shall be deemed to constitute related actions within the meaning of Article 30(3).

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 a (new)

Article 34a 1. Notwithstanding the rules in Articles 3 to 7, if either proceedings between the same parties or related proceedings are pending at the same time before the courts of a third State and a court in a Member State, the latter court may, on the application of a party, stay the proceedings before it if the proceedings before the courts of the third State have as their object one of the following: (a) rights in rem in immoveable property or tenancies of immoveable property where the property in question is situated in that third State; (b) the validity of the constitution, the nullity or the dissolution of companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, or the validity of the decisions of their organs, where the seat of the company, legal person or association concerned is located in that third State; (c) the registration or validity of patents, trade marks, designs or similar rights to be deposited or registered where such deposit or registration has been applied for or has taken place in that third State, provided that: (i) it may be expected that the court in the third State will, within a reasonable time, deliver a judgment that will be capable of recognition and, where applicable, enforcement in that Member State, except where there are sufficient assets located in the third State to satisfy a judgment given in favour of the claimant; and (ii) the court of the Member State is satisfied that to stay the proceedings before it is in the interests of justice and the courts of the third State are clearly more appropriate to determine the case than the forum courts. 2. During the period of the stay the party who has seised the court in the Member State shall not lose the benefit of interruption of prescription or limitation periods provided for under the law of that Member State. 3. The court of the Member State may discharge the stay at any time upon application by either party if one of the following conditions is met: (a) the proceedings in the court of the third State are themselves stayed or are discontinued; (b) it appears to the court of the Member State that the proceedings in the court of the third State are unlikely to be concluded within a reasonable time; (c) discharge of the stay is required for the proper administration of justice. 4. The court of the Member State shall upon application by either party dismiss the proceedings if the proceedings in the court of the third State are concluded and have resulted in a judgment enforceable in that State, or capable of recognition and, where applicable, enforcement in the Member State. 5. The sets of proceedings referred to in paragraph 1 shall be deemed to constitute related actions within the meaning of Article 30(3).

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 b (new)

Article 34b 1. Notwithstanding the rules in Articles 3 to 7, if proceedings between the same parties falling within the material scope of a choice of court agreement conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of a State which is neither a Member State nor a State bound by the 2007 Lugano Convention arise in that third State and in a court in a Member State, the latter court may, on the application of a party, stay the proceedings before it if: (a) it may be expected that the court in that third State will, within a reasonable time, deliver a judgment that will be capable of recognition and, where applicable, enforcement in that Member State, except where there are sufficient assets located in the third State to satisfy a judgment given in favour of the claimant; and (b) it is satisfied that to stay the proceedings before it is in the interests of justice; and (c) the subject-matter of the choice of court agreement falls outside the scope of the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. 2. During the period of the stay, the party who has seised the court in the Member State shall not lose the benefit of interruption of prescription or limitation periods provided for under the law of that Member State. 3. The court of the Member State may at any time, upon application by either party, discharge the stay if one of the following conditions is met: (a) the proceedings in the court of the third State are themselves stayed or are discontinued; (b) it appears to the court of the Member State that the proceedings in the court of the third State are unlikely to be concluded within a reasonable time; (c) discharge of the stay is required for the proper administration of justice 4. The court of the Member State shall upon application by either party dismiss the proceedings if the proceedings in the court of the third State are concluded and have resulted in a judgment enforceable in that State, or capable of recognition and, where applicable, enforcement in the Member State.

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 a (new)

With the exception of protective measures under the first paragraph, no enforcement measure shall be ordered unless either: (a) the applicant has, not less than 14 days before the date upon which the enforcement measure is sought, served on the party against whom the measure is sought a copy of the certificate referred to in Article 42(1) or (2) in accordance with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007, where applicable; or (b) it is impracticable to serve judicial documents on the party against whom the enforcement measure is sought, and the applicant has taken reasonable steps to bring the contents of the judgment to the notice of the party against whom the measure is sought.

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(ba) if the competent authority of the Member State of enforcement so requires, a certificate in the form set out in Annex I confirming that the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 40 have been satisfied.

2011/10/19
Committee: JURI