Broad interpretation of Art. 6 §1 of Reg. 44/2001: Case C-98/06

The Court of Justice has given a fairly broad interpretation of Article 6 § 1 of Regulation 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters in Case C-98/06 Freeport.

Article 6 § 1 of regulation 44/2001 provides :

"A person domiciled in a Member State may also be sued:
1. where he 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;"

The question arose whether a defendant "A" can be sued in the court in which defendant "B" is being sued when the action against "A" is contractual but the action against "B" is tortious, there being no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and "B".

The Court of Justice held that Article 6 § 1 could be applied even though the claims brought against a number of defendants have different legal bases.

The Court also held that Article 6 § 1 applies where claims brought against different defendants are connected when the proceedings are instituted, that is to say, where it is expedient to hear and determine them together 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.

Let's hope that the folks over at the wonderful Conflict of Laws blog will analyze the judgment too.

Comments

[new louis vuitton belt]

observation - recently one can notice an increase towards multilinguism (irish becomes official language after 35 years from accession