Tutorial 2
Case 1 - recognition and enforcement
Question 1
International facts: Green spike spa, an italian company, goes into a contract with a mexican
company. The Mexican company has delivery in the Netherlands. They have a choice of court in
Italy so the Mexican company sues them and now wants to see if it can be recognised in the
netherlands.
Caracterisation: a contractual agreement
PIL question: can a judgment from Italy be recognised in netherlands?
Sources:
Brussels I:bis Hauge choice of court convention and private national international law.
Brussels I:bis scopes: substantive: art 1. Applies in civil and commercial matters, this is
met as it is a commercial contact they have concluded. Temporal scope: Art 66, applies to
judgements after 10 january 2015, this is met because the judgment was in 2024 as the contract
was written 1 march 2024. Geographical scope: has to be between member states: this
condition is not met as one state is considered Mexico. Therefore the Brussels I:bis is not
applicable. But the question asks for netherlands hence it can be used brussels I-bis.
Scope: Hauge choice of court convention scope:
Substantive scope: Art 3(a) there needs to be a choice of court agreement, and it only
applies to b2b. No consumer contracts. - this is fulfilled here as they were both companies and
they had the court of Italy as a choice of court.
Geographical scope: it has to be an international dispute where the chosen court is a
contracting state: this is fulfilled because there is an international issue and Italy is a contracting
state.
Temporal scope: art 16: applies if choice of court clause was made after the chosen
country went into the convention. - this applies as both countries entered in 2015 and the clause
was chosen in 2024. The HCOC can therefore be used as it fulfills all criteria.
Concurrence: There is concurrence because Both Brussels i-Bis and HCOC are applicable, but
according to article 69 Brussels I-bis, between member states Brussels has priority.
Application:
According to article 36(1) there is automatic recognition of judgments that are from other
Member states. Therefore there should be automatic recognition between Italy and netherlands.
Furthermore, article 2(a) defines a judgement which includes, Covers all judgements EXCEPT
, provisional, including protective measures (PPM), if the court lacked jurisdiction or it was issued
ex parte Additionally there are grounds for refusal under article 45 brussels I-bis.
Supporting case law is Hoffman v. Krieg established that Recognized EU Judgements must
have the same effect as national ones.
None of the refusals seem apparent and therefore it should be enforceable.
Question 2
International facts: same but now there is a provisional measure from rotterdam.
Caracterisation: contractual agreement?
PIL question: can an interim judgement from rotterdam court be enforced in italy?
Sources: brussels I-bis, HCOC, national private international law.
Scope:
HCOC: temporal:
Application:
Article 35 Brussels I-bis gives the Rotterdam court authority to write an interim
judgement.
Article 39: no need for equatatur.
Hoffman v Krieg Judgment shall be enforced under the same conditions as a judgment given in
the MS addressed.
But art 2 brussels I-bis article 2(a) It does not include a provisional,
including protective, measure which is ordered by such a court or tribunal without the defendant being summoned to appear,
unless the judgment containing the measure is served on the defendant prior to enforcement
Conclusion:
Only in the Netherlands because it is not applicable under Brussels I-bis.
Question 3:
Case 1 - recognition and enforcement
Question 1
International facts: Green spike spa, an italian company, goes into a contract with a mexican
company. The Mexican company has delivery in the Netherlands. They have a choice of court in
Italy so the Mexican company sues them and now wants to see if it can be recognised in the
netherlands.
Caracterisation: a contractual agreement
PIL question: can a judgment from Italy be recognised in netherlands?
Sources:
Brussels I:bis Hauge choice of court convention and private national international law.
Brussels I:bis scopes: substantive: art 1. Applies in civil and commercial matters, this is
met as it is a commercial contact they have concluded. Temporal scope: Art 66, applies to
judgements after 10 january 2015, this is met because the judgment was in 2024 as the contract
was written 1 march 2024. Geographical scope: has to be between member states: this
condition is not met as one state is considered Mexico. Therefore the Brussels I:bis is not
applicable. But the question asks for netherlands hence it can be used brussels I-bis.
Scope: Hauge choice of court convention scope:
Substantive scope: Art 3(a) there needs to be a choice of court agreement, and it only
applies to b2b. No consumer contracts. - this is fulfilled here as they were both companies and
they had the court of Italy as a choice of court.
Geographical scope: it has to be an international dispute where the chosen court is a
contracting state: this is fulfilled because there is an international issue and Italy is a contracting
state.
Temporal scope: art 16: applies if choice of court clause was made after the chosen
country went into the convention. - this applies as both countries entered in 2015 and the clause
was chosen in 2024. The HCOC can therefore be used as it fulfills all criteria.
Concurrence: There is concurrence because Both Brussels i-Bis and HCOC are applicable, but
according to article 69 Brussels I-bis, between member states Brussels has priority.
Application:
According to article 36(1) there is automatic recognition of judgments that are from other
Member states. Therefore there should be automatic recognition between Italy and netherlands.
Furthermore, article 2(a) defines a judgement which includes, Covers all judgements EXCEPT
, provisional, including protective measures (PPM), if the court lacked jurisdiction or it was issued
ex parte Additionally there are grounds for refusal under article 45 brussels I-bis.
Supporting case law is Hoffman v. Krieg established that Recognized EU Judgements must
have the same effect as national ones.
None of the refusals seem apparent and therefore it should be enforceable.
Question 2
International facts: same but now there is a provisional measure from rotterdam.
Caracterisation: contractual agreement?
PIL question: can an interim judgement from rotterdam court be enforced in italy?
Sources: brussels I-bis, HCOC, national private international law.
Scope:
HCOC: temporal:
Application:
Article 35 Brussels I-bis gives the Rotterdam court authority to write an interim
judgement.
Article 39: no need for equatatur.
Hoffman v Krieg Judgment shall be enforced under the same conditions as a judgment given in
the MS addressed.
But art 2 brussels I-bis article 2(a) It does not include a provisional,
including protective, measure which is ordered by such a court or tribunal without the defendant being summoned to appear,
unless the judgment containing the measure is served on the defendant prior to enforcement
Conclusion:
Only in the Netherlands because it is not applicable under Brussels I-bis.
Question 3:
