Case law Brussels I Regulation (44/2001)


Article 6 of the Brussels I Regulation

(Art. 6 BR I = Art. 6 BC 1968)

 


Two or more defendants [Article 6, point (1)]


ECJ 22 May 2008 ‘Glaxosmithkline v Rouard’ (Case C-462/06, ECR 2008 Page I-03965)

The rule of special jurisdiction provided for in Article 6, point (1), of the Brussels I Regulation cannot be applied to a dispute falling under Section 5 of Chapter II of that Regulation concerning the jurisdiction rules applicable to individual contracts of employment.

It is apparent from Article 18(1) of that Regulation and, moreover, from a literal interpretation of Section 5, supported by the ‘travaux préparatoires’ relating to the Regulation, that the court having jurisdiction in proceedings concerning an individual contract of employment must be designated in accordance with the jurisdiction rules laid down in that Section, rules which, on account of their specific and exhaustive nature, cannot be amended or supplemented by other rules of jurisdiction laid down in that regulation unless specific reference is made thereto in Section 5.

As regards the possibility that only an employee may rely on Article 6, point (1), of the Brussels I Regulation, that would run counter to the wording of both that provision and Section 5 of Chapter II of that Regulation. The transformation by the Community courts of the rules of special jurisdiction, aimed at facilitating sound administration of justice, into rules of unilateral jurisdiction protecting the party deemed to be weaker would go beyond the balance of interests which the Community legislature has established in the law as it currently stands. Furthermore, such an interpretation would be difficult to reconcile with the principle of legal certainty, which is one of the objectives of the regulation and which requires, in particular, that rules of jurisdiction be interpreted in such a way as to be highly predictable (see paras 19-24, 32-33, 35, operative part).


ECJ 11 October 2007 ‘Freeport v Arnoldsson’ (Case C-98/06, ECR 2007 p. I-08319)

Article 6, point (1), of the Brussels I Regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that claims brought against a number of defendants have different legal bases does not preclude application of that provision.

Although the wording of that provision does not show that the conditions laid down for its application include a requirement that the actions brought against different defendants should have identical legal bases, it must however be ascertained whether, between various claims brought by the same plaintiff against different defendants, there is a connection of such a kind that it is expedient to determine those actions together in order to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. For decisions to be regarded as contradictory, it is not sufficient for there to be a divergence in the outcome of the dispute.

In addition, that provision applies where claims brought against different defendants are connected when the proceedings are instituted, to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings, without there being any further need to establish separately that the claims were not brought with the sole object of ousting the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State where one of the defendants is domiciled (see paras 38-40, 47, 52, 54, operative part 1-2)


ECJ 13 July 2006 ‘Reisch Montage v Kiesel’ (Case C-103/05, ECR 2006 p. I-06827)

Article 6, point (1), of the Brussels I Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that that provision may be relied on in the context of an action brought in a Member State against a defendant domiciled in that State and a co-defendant domiciled in another Member State even when that action is regarded under a national provision as inadmissible from the time it is brought in relation to the first defendant, such as a rule precluding creditors from bringing individual actions against a debtor who has been declared bankrupt. First, that provision does not include any express reference to the application of domestic rules or any requirement that an action brought against a number of defendants should be admissible, by the time it is brought, in relation to each of those defendants under national law. Second, since it is not one of the provisions which provide expressly for the application of domestic rules and thus serve as a legal basis therefor, that provision cannot be interpreted in such a way as to make its application dependent on the effects of domestic rules. However, that same provision cannot be interpreted in such a way as to allow a plaintiff to make a claim against a number of defendants for the sole purpose of removing one of them from the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which that defendant is domiciled (see paras 27, 30-33, operative part).


ECJ 13 July 2006 ‘Roche v Primus and Goldenberg’ (Case C-539/03, ECR 2006 p. I-06535)

Article 6, point 1, of the 1968 Brussels Convention [Article 6, point 1, of the Brussels I Regulation] must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply in European patent infringement proceedings involving a number of companies established in various Contracting States [Member States] in respect of acts committed in one or more of those States even where those companies, which belong to the same group, may have acted in an identical or similar manner in accordance with a common policy elaborated by one of them. Since neither the patent infringements of which the various defendants are accused nor the national law in relation to which those acts are assessed are the same, there is no risk of irreconcilable decisions being given in European patent infringement proceedings brought in different Contracting States, since possible divergences between decisions given by the courts concerned would not arise in the context of the same factual and legal situation. It follows that the connection required for Article 6, point 1, of the Brussels Convention [Article 6, point 1, of the Brussels I Regulation] to apply cannot be established between such actions (see paras 20, 25, 27-28, 31, 33, 35, 41, operative part).


ECJ 27 October 1998 ‘Réunion v Spliethoff's (Case C-51/97, ECR 1998 p. I-06511)

Article 6, point 1, of the 1968 Brussels Convention [Article 6, point 1, of the Brussels I Regulation] must be interpreted as meaning that a defendant domiciled in a Contracting State [Member State] cannot, on the basis of that provision, be sued in another Contracting State [Member State] before a court seised of an action against a co-defendant not domiciled in a Contracting State [Member State] on the ground that the dispute is indivisible rather than merely displaying a connection. The objective of legal certainty pursued by the Convention [Regulation] would not be attained if the fact that a court in a Contracting State [Member State] had accepted jurisdiction as regards one of the defendants not domiciled in a Contracting State [Member State] made it possible to bring another defendant, domiciled in a Contracting State [Member State], before that same court in cases other than those envisaged by the Convention, thereby depriving him of the benefit of the protective rules laid down by it.


ECJ 27 September 1988 'Athanasios v Bankhaus Schröder c.s.' (Case 189/87, ECR 1988 p. 05565)

For Article 6, point 1, of the 1968 Brussels Convention [Article 6, point 1, of the Brussels I Regulation] to apply, a connection must exist between the various actions brought by the same plaintiff against different defendants. That connection, whose nature must be determined independently, must be of such a kind that it is expedient to determine the actions together in order to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings.

 


Third party in third-party proceedings [Article 6, point (2)]


ECJ 26 May 2005 ‘GIE c.s. v Zurich’ (Case C-77/04, ECR 2005 p. I-04509)

Article 6, point 2, of the 1968 Brussels Convention [Article 6, point 2, of the Brussels I Regulation] is applicable to third-party proceedings between insurers based on multiple insurance, in so far as there is a sufficient connection between the original proceedings and the third-party proceedings to support the conclusion that the choice of forum, made on the basis of the provisions of the Brussels Convention [Brussels I Regulation] and not on the basis of a contractual choice of forum, does not amount to an abuse. It is for the national court seised of the original claim to verify the existence of such a connection, in the sense that it must satisfy itself that the third-party proceedings do not seek to remove the defendant from the jurisdiction of the court which would be competent in the case (see paras 32, 36, operative part 2).


ECJ 15 May 1990 ‘Agentur Hagen v Zeehaghe’ (Case C-365/88, ECR 1990 p. I-01845)

Where a defendant domiciled in a Contracting State [Member State] is sued in a court of another Contracting State [Member State] pursuant to Article 5, point 1, of the 1968 Brussels Convention [Article 5, point 1, of the Brussels I Regulation], that court also has jurisdiction by virtue of Article 6, point 2, of that Convention [Article 6, point 2, of that Regulation] to entertain an action on a warranty or guarantee brought against a person domiciled in a Contracting State [Member State] other than that of the court seised of the original proceedings. To enable the entire dispute to be heard by a single court, Article 6, point 2 [Article 6, point 2, Regulation], simply requires there to be a connecting factor between the main action and the action on a warranty or guarantee, irrespective of the basis on which the court has jurisdiction in the original proceedings.

Article 6, point 2 [Article 6, point 2, Regulation] must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the national court to accede to the request for leave to bring an action on a warranty or guarantee and that the national court may apply the procedural rules of its national law in order to determine whether that action is admissible, provided that the effectiveness of the 1968 Brussels Convention [the Brussels I Regulation] in that regard is not impaired and, in particular, that leave to bring the action on the warranty or guarantee is not refused on the ground that the third party resides or is domiciled in a Contracting State [Member Stae] other than that of the court seised of the original proceedings.

 


Counterclaim arising from the same contract or facts as the original claim [Article 6, point (3)]


ECJ 26 May 2005 ‘GIE c.s. v Zurich’ (Case C-77/04, ECR 2005 p. I-04509)

Third-party proceedings between insurers based on multiple insurance are not subject to the rules of special jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance in Section 3 of Title II of the 1968 Brussels Convention [Section 3 of Title II of the Brussels I Regulation]. In affording the insured a wider range of jurisdiction than that available to the insurer and in excluding any possibility of a clause conferring jurisdiction for the benefit of the insurer, the provisions of that section reflect an underlying concern to protect the insured, who in most cases is faced with a predetermined contract, the clauses of which are no longer negotiable, and is the weaker party economically. No special protection is justified since the parties concerned are professionals in the insurance sector, none of whom may be presumed to be in a weaker position than the others (see paras 17, 20, 24, operative part 1).


ECJ 13 July 1995 ‘Danværn v Schuhfabriken Otterbeck’ (Case C-341/93, ECR 1995 p. I-02053)

Article 6, point 3, of the 1968 Brussels Convention [Article 6, pont 3, of the Brussels I Regulation] is intended to establish the conditions under which a court has jurisdiction to hear a claim which would involve a separate judgment or decree. It therefore applies only to claims by defendants which seek the pronouncement of such a judgment or decree. It does not apply to the situation where a defendant raises, as a pure defence, a claim which he allegedly has against the plaintiff. The defences which may be raised and the conditions under which they may be raised are governed by national law.