Activites

• 2001/01/16 Final act published in Official Journal
  • Regulation 2001/44
  • OJ L 012 16.01.2001, p. 0001
• #2325
• 2000/12/22 Council Meeting
• 2000/12/22 End of procedure in Parliament
• 2000/12/22 Act adopted by Council after consultation of Parliament
• #2314
• 2000/11/30 Council Meeting
• 2000/10/26 Modified legislative proposal published
  • COM(2000)0689 summary

    This amended proposal is adopted in response to amendments voted on by Parliament. The Commission can accept a number of Parliament's amendments. The amendments accepted in whole or in part aim to: - take into account of the special position of the United Kingdom and Ireland; - treat authentic instruments in the same way as judicial decisions, in terms of automatic recognition; - limit the multiplicity of courts having jurisdiction in insurance matters, the purpose of which is to enable an insurer to be sued in the courts for the place where the policy holder, the insured or a beneficiary is domiciled, regardless of the nature of the insurance contract (individual or group). The Commission can accept part of this amendment. The possibility offered to the policy-holder of suing in the courts for the place where he is domiciled, regardless of the nature of the contract, is already provided for in the Brussels Convention and there is no need to with draw it, which would be a retrograde step. But the Commission can accept that the extension of the protection of the courts to the insured person and the beneficiary be confined to situations where the contract is an individual contract, in order to avoid undesirable multiplication of courts having jurisdiction; - take account of the Regulation's impact on small business in the report, however, the Commission cannot accept the second part of the amendment which provides that this report should be made within two years rather than five. The Commission states that it would impossible, given the duration of judicial procedures in the Member States, to accumulate the necessary statistics and number of judgements under the Regulation to prepare the report; - provide a time-lag between adoption and entry into force of the regulation. On the other hand, the Commission cannot accept the amendments relating to: - the addition of a ew Article 17a (authorisation of clauses referring to consumer disputes to a non-judicial-settlement body); - Article 15 (definition of consumer contracts covered by the rules on jurisdiction in Article 16); - the insertion of a new Article 55a concerning the enforceability of settlements agreed within an alternative dispute-settlement scheme.�

  • DG [{'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/justice/', 'title': 'Justice'}],
• 2000/09/21 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • T5-0401/2000 summary

    In adopting the European Parliament's report, drafted by Diana WALLIS (ELDR, UK), a number of amendments to the Commission's initial proposal were agreed. The Commission's original clause on jurisdiction was retained, but an amendment was adopted that would restrict the right of consumers to sue foreign suppliers of goods or providers of services in their jurisdiction to 'active' Internet sites, i.e. sites which target the consumer's Member State. Further amendments call for the extensive use of extra-judicial dispute resolution so that the judicial system is considered inappropriate for consumer claims relating to transactions concluded on-line, especially where the parties are domiciled in different States, in view of the costs and delays entailed thereby and the stigma often associated with going to court. It is also suggested that extra-judicial dispute resolution schemes should be accredited and that the grant of trust marks by national authorities, trade and consumer associations and, possibly, the Commission itself should be conditional upon the site in question providing for an extra-judicial resolution system accredited under a scheme approved by the Commission.�

• 2000/09/20 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2000/09/04 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • A5-0253/2000
• #2251
• 2000/03/27 Council Meeting
  • 2251
• 1999/10/07 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 1999/07/14 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(1999)0348 summary

    PURPOSE : to harmonise the rules of private international law in the Member States relating to jurisdiction and to improve and speed up the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. CONTENT : this proposal for a Regulation is based on the the new measures of the Treaty of Amsterdam relating to judicial cooperation in civil matters (Article 67 of the EC Treaty). The Regulation will replace and bring up to date the contents of the 1968 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of these judgments in civil and commercial matters by ensuring the continuity of results obtained in the framework of its negotiation. This Convention has not yet come into force in all the Member States as only a minority of them have ratified it. Like the Convention that it aims to replace, the Regulation has the same essential structure and basic principles, and seeks to : - introduce uniform modern standards for jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters and - simplify the formalities governing the rapid and automatic recognition and enforcement of the relevant judgements by a simple and uniform procedure. The proposed Regulation closely corresponds to the Brussels Convention and the results and negotiations in the ad hoc working party for the revision of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions, which it takes over to a substantial extent. The chief innovations following the work done by the working party are in the following areas : - the concept of the domicile of the natural persons is maintained, but there is now an autonomous definition of the seat of a legal person in place of a reference to the rules of private international law of the State in which jurisdiction is exercised; - the alternative jurisdiction has been reframed. The place of performance of the obligation underlying the claim will now be given an autonomous definition in two categories of situation: the sale of goods and the provision of services; - the material scope of the provisions governing consumer contracts has been extended so as to offer consumers better protection, notably in the field of electronic commerce; - to make the lis pendens rules more effective, the Regulation provides an autonomous definition of the date on which a case is "pending"; - the procedure for recognition and enforcement has been modified in order to improve the time taken for the declaration of enforceability and therefore the enforcement of judgments for the creditor.�

  • DG [{'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/justice/', 'title': 'Justice'}],

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: COM(1999)0348
• Debate in Council: 2251
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A5-0253/2000
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T5-0401/2000
• Modified legislative proposal published: COM(2000)0689
• : Regulation 2001/44
• : OJ L 012 16.01.2001, p. 0001

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)