The Brussels I Regulation
Jurisdiction in matters of insurance,
consumers contracts and individual
contracts of employment
The Brussels I Regulation
Jurisdiction in chosen matters
The articles 8-21 of the Regulation set
down special rules for jurisdiction in
chosen matters – insurance, consumer
contracts and individual contracts of
employment.
 The reason for such provisions –
protection of the „typically“ weaker party.

The Brussels I Regulation
Jurisdiction in the matters relating to
insurance




Articles 8-14 of the Regulation.
The weaker party shall be either the policyholder,
either the insured person or the one who benefits
from the insurance contracts (beneficiary).
The Regulation does not specify the notion
„insurance“ – shall be interpreted autonomouslyinsurance contracts in civil and commercial matters
(insurance of health, life, property or liability). Public
law insurance is excluded ( e.g. public health
insurance).
The insurance contracts may be concluded
voluntarily or compulsory.
The Brussels I Regulation
Jurisdiction in the matters relating to
insurance
The basic rule for determination of the jurisdiction in
these matters – article 9 of the Regulation:
The insurer domiciled in a member state my be sued:
a)
In the courts of a Member state where he is domiciled,
or
b)
In another Member state, in the case of actions
brought by the policyholder, the insured or a
beneficiary, in the courts for the place where the
plaintiff is domiciled,
c)
If he is a co-insurer, in the courts of the Member state
in which proceedings are brought against the leading
insurer.

The Brussels I Regulation
Jurisdiction in the matters relating to
insurance



In article 10 other possibility in respect of liability
insurance or immovable property insurance – in
addition the insurer may be sued there, where
the harmful event occurred.
In the matters of liability insurance may be, if the
national law permits so, sued in court, where an
action of the injured party against the insured
was brought.
The Insurer may sue only in courts determined
by the basic rule (where the defendant is
domiciled).
The Brussels I Regulation
Jurisdiction in the matters relating to
insurance – prorogation agreement

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
The prorogation agreement according to conditions set
by the article 23 is not allowed contrary the provisions
of the section, but according to article 13 there may be
concluded the prorogation agreement:
Which is entered after the dispute arisen,
Which gives the right to change the courts to weaker
party,
Which confirms the jurisdiction of the courts of the
member state where both parties (insurer and
policyholder) are domiciled,
Which is concluded with a policyholder not domiciled in
a Member state, unless it is the matter of compulsory
insurance or it relates to immovable property.
If it covers some special risks (article 14).
The Brussels I Regulation
Jurisdiction over consumer contracts




a)
b)
c)
Articles 15-17 of the Regulation
The weaker party – the consumer.
The contracts for a purpose which can be regarded as
being outside of his trade or profession.
Covers:
Contracts for the sale of goods on instalment credit
terms.
Contracts for a loan repayable by instalments or for any
other form of credit, made to finance the sale of goods.
In all other cases, the contract has been concluded with a
person who pursues commercial or professional activities
in the Member State of the consumer's domicile or, by
any means, directs such activities to that Member State
or to several States including that Member State, and the
contract falls within the scope of such activities.
The Brussels I Regulation
Jurisdiction over consumer contracts
According to article 15 para 1 letter a – sale of
goods on instalment credit:
 ECJ Case 150/77 Bertrand v. Paul Ott
German company concluded sales agreement with
French company. The price should have been
paid in two instalments. The French company
did not paid the first – the German company
initiated proceedings in Germany.
The question – are two instalments sufficient to
take the contract as sale on instalment credit?
And when two companies conclude sales
agreement – is one of them weaker (consumer)?

The Brussels I Regulation
Jurisdiction over consumer contracts
The regulation of the consumer contracts
is not satisfactory – article 15 para 1 letter
c) – is focussed only on „passive
consumer“ – the one who buys only in the
Member state, where he is domiciled.
 Does not apply to contracts of transport,
unless they are combined with
accommodation.

The Brussels I Regulation
Jurisdiction over consumer contracts
The basic rule of the jurisdiction – article 16.
A consumer may bring proceedings against the
other party to a contract either in courts of the
Member state in which that party is domiciled of
in the courts for the place where consumer is
domiciled.
The consumer may be sued only in the place,
where he is domiciled.

The Brussels I Regulation
Jurisdiction over consumer contracts –
prorogation agreement

a)
b)
c)
The application of the article 23 contrary the
provisions of this section is not allowed,
however the article 17 allows prorogation
agreement over consumer contracts, if:
It is entered after the dispute,
It allows to chose the court to the consumer,
It confirms the jurisdiction of courts of Member
state, where both contract parties are
domiciled.
The Brussels I Regulation
Jurisdiction over consumer contracts
A lot of decisions of EC courts in this matter, e.g.:
 C-464/01 Johann Gruber v. Bay Wa AG
Mister Gruber (Austrian citizen) was running a business in
his farm, his business took 40 % of the activities
concerning the functioning of the farm, 60 % of them
were private. He ordered roof tiles from German
company and just said he is a entrepreneur, but did not
specified he needs the roof tiles as a private consumer
or as entrepreneur. The tiles had defects and he wanted
to sue in Austria according to article 16 of the
Regulation.
 ECJ – if a person can be considered as entrepreneur
and consumer according to one contract, he should be
considered as the entrepreneur unless the business
purpose is insignificant (trivial).

The Brussels I Regulation
Jurisdiction over consumer contracts

1)
2)
Bingo decisions
Decision Gabriel C 96/00 – Mister Gabriel in
Austria got letters from company
Schlank&Schick in Germany – he was winner
of amount of 3500 Euro, the claim was
subordinate to order of goods of minimum
value 15 Euro, he ordered the goods, he got
the goods but not the promised price.
Decision Engler v. Janus Verand GmbH C
27/02 – Missis Engler from Austria received
payment notice, according to which she was
entitled to a price, she only had to turn it back.
She sent it back, did not get any money.
The Brussels I Regulation
Jurisdiction over individual contracts of
employment



a)
b)
1.
2.

Articles 18-21.
The weaker party is employee.
The employer may be sued:
In the courts of the Member state where he is domiciled
In another Member state:
In the courts for the place where the employee habitually
carries out his work or in the courts for the last place
where he did so, or
If the employee does not or did not habitually carry out
his work in any one country, in the courts for the place,
where the business which engaged the employee is or
was situated.
The employee may be sued only in courts in the Member
state where he is domiciled.
The Brussels I Regulation
Jurisdiction over individual contracts of
employment – prorogation agreement

a)
b)
The application of the article 23 contrary
the provisions of this section is not
allowed, however the article 21 allows
prorogation agreement individual
contracts of employment, if:
It is entered after the dispute has arisen,
It allows the employee to chose the
courts.
Brussels I Regulation
Jurisdiction over individual contracts of
employment
Decision Petrus Rutten v. Cross Medical Ltd. C
383/95
Mister Rutten was an employee of Cross Medical
Ltd. (UK) – he exercised his work in Netherlands
and in other countries. After he terminated the
work for the company he sued the company in
Amsterdam.
The question – how to determine the place of
work?
The place which is the real centre of his work
activities.

Brussels I Regulation
Jurisdiction over individual contracts of
employment
Where, in the performance of a contract of employment,
an employee carries out his work in several Contracting
States, the place where he habitually carries out his
work, is the place where he has established the effective
centre of his working activities. When identifying that
place, it is necessary to take into account the fact that
the employee spends most of his working time in one of
the Contracting States in which he has an office where
he organizes his activities for his employer and to which
he returns after each business trip abroad.
Brussels I Regulation
Jurisdiction over individual contracts of
employment
437/00 - Giulia Pugliese v Finmeccanica SpA, Betriebsteil Alenia
Aerospazio – two employers.
In a dispute between an employee and a first employer, the place
where the employee performs his obligations to a second employer
can be regarded as the place where he habitually carries out his
work when the first employer, with respect to whom the employee ' s
contractual obligations are suspended, has, at the time of the
conclusion of the second contract of employment, an interest in the
performance of the service by the employee to the second employer.
The existence of such an interest must be determined on a
comprehensive basis, taking into consideration all the
circumstances of the case.
The Brussels I Regulation
The recognition and
enforcement of judgments
The Brussels I Regulation
The enforcement and recognition of
judgments

1.
2.
Two systems of enforcement of a
judgement of one Member state in
another Member state:
The Brussels I Regulation
The EEO Regulation (European
enforcement order for uncontested
claims)
The Brussels I Regulation
The enforcement and recognition of
judgments
Simpler rules than the rules about the
jurisdiction.
 Chapter III of the Regulation – articles 3356.
 Basic aim – free movement of judgments
 Interpretation – Court of justice

The Brussels I Regulation
The enforcement and recognition of
judgments
The procedure of recognition and enforcement
– 3 phases:
1. Recognition
2. Declaration of enforceability of judgment
3. Enforcement of judgment

The notion „judgment“ (article 32 of the
Regulation):
„any judgment given by a court or tribunal of a
Member state, whatever the judgment may be
called“

The Brussels I Regulation
The recognition of judgments
The principle of automatic recognition of
judgments – no special procedure, no
special decision is required.
 No review of the substance of the
judgment is allowed.
 However, In article 34 and 35 the reasons
for which recognition of decision can be
declined.

The Brussels I Regulation
The recognition of judgments

a)
b)
c)
d)
The reasons for declination of recognition:
The decision is manifestly contrary to public policy –
restrictive interpretation – the differences of national
legal regulation is not sufficient. Decision Krombach v.
Bamberski – C 7/98, the contrast has to be of such
level that the decision breaches the basic principles of
the legal order of the Member state.
Default of appearance, unless the defendant did not
use the opportunity to challenge the decision when he
could,
Two irreconcilable decisions between the same parties
in both Member states
Irreconcilable decisions between the same parties on
the same case of third Member state or third state, the
earlier shall be recognised in the Member state, where
recognition is sought.
The Brussels I Regulation
The recognition of judgments


In article 35 – the recognition may be declined –
if there is conflict with provisions of the
Regulation concerning exclusive jurisdiction or
jurisdiction in chosen matters (art. 8-21)
The legal force of the decision is not condition of
the recognition – article 37, if there is an
ordinary appeal against the decision – the
procedure of recognition may be stayed.
The Brussels I Regulation
The enforcement of judgments



Article 38 of the Regulation – a judgment of one
Member state may be enforced in another
Member state after it has been declared
enforceable (exequatur proceeding).
Application for the declaration of enforceability is
required.
Application shall be submitted to courts in Annex
II of the Regulation.
The Brussels I Regulation
The enforcement of judgments
Strictly formal procedure:
If the conditions required (copy of decision +
certificate according to articles 54-58) are
fulfilled, the court issues decision of
enforceability immediately without any review.
 The defendant does not know about the
application in that phase, the delivered decision
is serviced to him (then only he acquires
information about the procedure).

The Brussels I Regulation
The enforcement of judgments



Against the decision about enforceability – an
appeal is permissible –to the courts in Annex III
The term is one month (if the defendant is
domiciled in other member state, than where the
decision was issued – two months).
Against the decision of appeal – a remedy is
permissible – regulated by national law – annex
IV.
The Brussels I Regulation
The enforcement of judgments



The enforcement of the judgment which has be
declared enforceable – regulated by the national
law of the state.
The application for the enforcement can be
raised together with the application for the
declaration of the enforceability.
However, according to the possibility of raising
an appeal – the decision allowing the
enforcement can not come into legal force
earlier than the decision about the enforceability.