2009/2140(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas abolition of exequatur – the Commission’s main objective – would expedite the free movement of judicial decisions and form a key milestone in the building of a European judicial area,

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital L b (new)

Lb. whereas it is unclear to what extent protective orders aimed at obtaining information and evidence are excluded from the scope of Article 31 of the Regulation,

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 a (new)

Comprehensive concept for private international law -1a. Encourages the Commission to review the interrelationship between the different regulations addressing jurisdiction, enforcement and applicable law; the general aim should be a legal framework which is consistently structured and easily accessible; for this purpose, the terminology in all subject matters, all the concepts and requirements for similar rules in all subject matters should be unified and harmonised (e.g. lis pendens, jurisdiction clauses, etc) and the final aim might be a comprehensive codification of private international law;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Calls for the requirement for exequatur to be abolished, but considers that this must be balanced by stringent safeguards designed to protect the rights of the ~~judgment debtor; takes the view that provision will have to be made for a special review procedure conducted a posteriori on the judgment debtor’s applic~~party against whom enforcement is sought; takes the view that provision must be made for a review procedure available on the application of the party against whom enforcement is sought to the court indicated in the list in Annex III to the Regulation; considers that that review should be based on the criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Regulation; further considers that an application should be able to be made to a judge even before any steps are taken by way of enforcement and that if that judge rules that the application is based on serious grounds, he or she should refer the matter to the court indicated in the list in Annex III for review on the basis of the criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Regulation;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 1

1. Calls for the requirement for exequatur to be abolished, but considers that ~~this must be balanced by stringent safeguards designed to~~before abolishing exequatur it has to be guaranteed that it is balanced by stringent safeguards, which are sufficiently capable of protecting the rights of the judgment debtor~~; takes the view that provision will have to be made for a special review procedure conducted a posteriori on the judgment debtor’s application~~ and which ensure that fundamental rights are respected to a full extent;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Calls for the requirement for exequatur to be abolished, but considers that this must be balanced by ~~stringent~~appropriate safeguards designed to protect the rights of the ~~judgment debtor~~defence; takes the view that provision ~~will~~might have to be made for a special review procedure applicable to a limited category of cases only and conducted a posteriori on the ~~judgment debtor~~defendant’s application;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 1 a (new)

1a. Asks the Commission to draft a catalogue of minimum standards to safeguard procedural guarantees and jurisdiction over consumer contracts, over individual contracts of employment and in matters relating to insurance;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 2

2. Considers that the grounds on which exception may be taken to enforcement must be no fewer than those set out in Article~~s 34 and 35 of the Regulation and encourages the Commission to initiate a public debate on the question of public policy in connection with private international law instruments~~ 21 of Regulation No. 805/2004/EC and that minimum requirements whose infringement allows for the special review procedure should be no less than those set out in Chapter III of Regulation No 805/2004/EC;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that the grounds on which exception may be taken to enforcement must be no ~~fewer~~more than those set out in Arts 34 and 35 of the Regulation and encourages the Commission to initiate a public debate on the question of public policy in connection with private international law instruments;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 3

3. Considers that there must be a harmonised procedural time-frame for such review so as to ensure that it is conducted as expeditiously as possible~~, and that it must be ensured that the steps which may be taken by way of enforcement until the time-limit~~; it should be in the discretion of the courts of the enforcement state in how foar applying for special review has expired or the special review has been concluded are not irreversible; is particularly concerned that a foreign judgment should not be enforced if it has not been properly served on the judgment debtorn enforcement procedure is stayed or limited if a debtor starts a special review procedure in the state of origin;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Argues ~~not only~~ that the requirement for a certificate of authenticity ~~must~~could be maintained~~, but also that there should be a standard form for that certificate~~ as a procedural aid so as to guarantee recognition and facilitate translation, in which case there should be a standard form for that certificate; furthermore considers that such a certificate could be so central to the smooth functioning of the Regulation that a model certificate should be annexed to the Regulation itself;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas abolition of exequatur ~~will necessitate the introduction of a special review procedure so as to guarantee judgment debtors~~should be effected by providing that a judicial decision qualifying for recognition and enforcement under the Regulation which is enforceable in the Member State in which it was given is enforceable throughout the EU, this should be coupled with a special review procedure available to the party against whom enforcement is sought so as to guarantee an adequate right of recourse to the courts of the State of enforcement in the event that theat party wishes to contest enforcement; on the grounds set out in the Regulation, whereas it will be necessary to ensure that steps taken for enforcement before the expiry of the time- limit for applying for review are not irreversible,

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 4

4. Argues not only that the requirement for a certificate of authenticity must be maintained, but also that there should be a standard form for that certificate; the certificate should be in its appearance easily discernable by any judge in the territory of the European Union without the need for translation;

Amendment 21 #

Sebastian Valentin BODU, Françoise CASTEX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Believes that, in order to save costs, the translation of the decision to be enforced could be limited to the final order (operative part and summary grounds), but that a full translation should be required in the event that an application is made for review or if the court considers it appropriate in order to enforce the decision with full respect to its content;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that authentic instruments should ~~not~~ be directly enforceable without the possibility of review by the judicial authorities in the State in which enforcement is sought~~; takes the view that the special review procedure to be introduced should not be limited to cases whe~~ when they have been declared enforcement of the instrument is manifestly contrary to public policy in the State addressed since it is possible to conceive of circumstances in which an authentic act could be irreconcilable with an earlier judgment and the validity (as opposed to the authenticity) of an authentic act can be challenged in the courts of the State of origin on grounds of mistake, misrepresentation, etc. even durable in the State of origin; nevertheless, the parties concerned should keep the possibility of opposing their enforceability before the judicial bodies of the country of destination only where enforcement of the instrument is manifestly contrary to public order ing the ~~course of enforcement~~State addressed;

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 6

6. Considers that authentic instruments should ~~not be~~remain directly enforceable without the possibility of review by the judicial authorities in the State in which enforcement is sought; takes the view that the special review procedure to be introduced should not be limited to cases where enforcement of the instrument is manifestly contrary to public policy in the State addressed since it is possible to conceive of circumstances in which an authentic act could be irreconcilable with an earlier judgment and the validity (as opposed to the authenticity) of an authentic act can be challenged in the courts of the State of origin on grounds of mistake, misrepresentation, etc. even dur when they have been declared enforceable in the State of origin nevertheless, the parties concerned should keep the possibility of opposing their enforceability before the judicial bodies of the country of destination only where enforcement of the instrument is manifestly contrary to public order ing the ~~course of enforcement~~State addressed;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that authentic instruments, and those instruments having equivalent legal effects under their respective national law, should not be directly enforceable without the possibility of review by the judicial authorities in the State in which enforcement is sought; takes the view that the special review procedure to be introduced should not be limited to cases where enforcement of the instrument is manifestly contrary to public policy in the State addressed since it is possible to conceive of circumstances in which an authentic act could be irreconcilable with an earlier judgment and the validity (as opposed to the authenticity) of an authentic act can be challenged in the courts of the State of origin on grounds of mistake, misrepresentation, etc. even during the course of enforcement;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 7

7. Considers that maintenance obligations within the scope of Regulation No 4/2009/EC should be excluded from the scope of the Regulation ~~in view of the adoption of Regulation No 4/2009~~, but reiterates that the final aim should be a comprehensive body of law encompassing all subject matters;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Strongly opposes ~~the (even partial) abolition of the exclusion of arbitration from the scope;~~ any change whatsoever that could hinder the effectiveness of arbitration agreements and, in general, the proper functioning of arbitration in civil and commercial matters;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 8

8. Strongly opposes the (even partial) abolition of the exclusion of arbitration from the scope without further review;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Takes the view that the questions posed by the relationship between arbitral and judicial proceedings must be thoroughly reflected upon in a separate review and that, until such time as review has been conducted, the idea of an exclusive head of jurisdicConsiders that Article 1(2)(d) of the Regulation should make it clear that not only arbitration proceedings, but also judicial procedures ruling on the validity or extent of arbitral competence as a principal issue or as an incidental or preliminary question are excluded from the scope of the Regulation; f~~or court proceedings supporting arbitration in the civil~~urther considers that a paragraph should be added to Article 31 providing that a judgment shall not be recognised if, in giving its decision, the court~~s of~~ in the Member State~~s and a corresponding obligation on the courts~~ of origin has, in deciding a question relating to the validity or extent of an arbitration clause, disregarded a rule of the law of arbitration in other Member State~~s to transfer parallel litigation to the courts~~ in which enforcement is sought, unless the judgment of theat Member State ~~where the arbitration takes place should not be contemplat~~produces the same result as if the law of arbitration of the Member State in which enforcement is sought had been applied;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Considers that~~, in order to deal with the West Tankers question, the arbitration exception should be clarified in a recit~~ this should al so as to make it clear that proceedings brought in breach of arbitration clauses and judgments not given by the competent court holding that arbitration clauses are invalid fall outside of the scope of the Regulation and are therefore not enforceable in other Member States; further takes the view that it would be helpful for the 'Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle' to be endorsbe clarified in a recital;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)

Ia. whereas the rules of the New York Convention are minimum rules and the law of the Contracting States may be more favourable to arbitral competence and arbitration awards,

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 10

10. Considers that, in order to deal with the West Tankers question, the arbitration exception should be clarified in a recital so as to make it clear that proceedings brought in breach of arbitration clauses and judgments not given by the competent court holding that arbitration clauses are invalid fall outside of the scope of the Regulation and are therefore not enforceable in other Member States; further takes the view that it would be helpful for the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle to be endorsed in a recital;deleted

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Considers that the Regulation should contain a new provision dealing with the opposability of choice-of-court agreements against third parties; takes the view that such provision could provide that a person who is not a party to the contract will be bound by an exclusive choice-of-court agreement concluded in accordance with the Regulation only if: (a) that agreement is contained in a written document or electronic record; (b) that person is given timely and adequate notice of the court where the action shall be brought; (c) in contracts for carriage of goods, the chosen court is (i) the domicile of the carrier; (ii) the place of receipt agreed in the contract of carriage; (iii) the place of delivery agreed in the contract of carriage, or (iv) the port where the goods are initially loaded on a ship or the port where the goods are finally discharged from a ship. It should further be provided that, in all other cases, the third party may bring an action before the court otherwise competent under the Regulation if it appears that holding that party to the chosen forum would be blatantly unfair;

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 12

12. Suggests, in order to avoid the type of problem which came to the fore in Owusu v. Jackson, a solution on the lines of Article 15 of Regulation No 2201/2003 so as to allow the courts of a Member State having jurisdiction as to the substance to stay proceedings if they considered that a court oftrongly opposes the introduction of a rule of forum non conveniens or any other ~~Member State or of a third country would be better placed to hear the case, or a specific part there~~rules that would jeopardise the predictability of, thus enabling the parties to bring an application before that court or to enable the court seised to transfer the case to that court with the agreement of the parties; welcomes the corresponding suggestion in the proposal for a regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and authentic instruments in matters of successe competent court and delay the start of proceedings on the subject-matter; it is also an expression of party autonomy that a claimant can freely chose a forum provided for in the Regulation1;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 13

13. Considers that the question whether the rules of the Regulation should be given reflexive effect has not been sufficiently considered and that it would be premature to take this step without much study, wide- ranging consultations and political debate, in which Parliament should play a leading role; further considers that, in view of the existence of large numbers of bilateral agreements between Member States and third countries, questions of reciprocity and international comity, the problem is a global one and a solution should be sought in the Hague Conference through the resumption of negotiations on an international judgments convention; mandates the Commission to use its best endeavours to revive this project, the Holy Grail of private international law; the Commission shall also explore the possibility to promote the Lugano Convention 2007 as a realistic alternative to the Hague Framework;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Considers that the question whether the rules of the Regulation should be given reflexive effect has not been sufficiently considered and that it would be premature to take this step without much study, wide- ranging consultations and political debate, in which Parliament should play a leading role; further considers that, in view of the existing of large numbers of bilateral agreements between Member States and third countries, questions of reciprocity and international comity, the problem is a global one and a solution should be sought in the Hague Conference through the resumption of negotiations on an international judgments convention; mandates the Commission to use its best endeavours to revive this project, the Holy Grail of private international lawto be sufficiently considered;

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 14

14. Considers in the meantime that the Community rules on exclusive jurisdiction with regard to rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property could be extended to proceedings brought in a third State; jurisdiction rules for consumers and employees shall also be applicable with regard to third-state companies;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 15

15. Advocates amending the Regulation to allow reflexive effect to be given to exclusive choice of court clauses in favour of third states’ courts while upholding all restrictions on choice-of-court clauses in the Regulation;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Takes the view that an autonomous European definition of the domicile (ultimately applicable to all European legal instruments) of natural persons would be desirable, in order in particular to avoid situations in which persons may have more than one domicile and would favour a single definition of the domicile of companies, while appreciating the considerable difficulties involved;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 17

17. Takes the view that an autonomous definition of the domicile of natural persons would be desirable, in order in particular to avoid situations in which persons may have more than one domicile ~~and would favour a single definition of the domicile of companies, while appreciating the considerable difficulties involved~~;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 17 a (new)

17a. Rejects a uniform definition of the domicile of companies within the Brussels I Regulation, since a definition with such far-reaching consequences should be discussed and decided within the scope of a developing European company law; considers that a definition of the domicile of companies could impede the improper foundation of letterbox companies and could avoid protective measures under labour and company law;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I b (new)

Ib. whereas, moreover, a rule providing that the courts of the Member State of the seat of the arbitration should have exclusive jurisdiction could give rise to considerable perturbations,

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 19

19. Considers that, in order to overcome the problem of ‘torpedo actions’, the court second seised should be relieved from the obligation to stay proceedings under the lis pendens rule where the court first seised evidently has no jurisdiction; the court second seised shall however not be allowed to take a decision on the subject- matter before the court first seised has finally rejected its jurisdiction; rejects the idea, however, that claims for negative declaratory relief should be excluded altogether from the first-in-time rule on the ground that such claims can have a legitimate commercial purpose;

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Considers that, in order to overcome the problem of ‘torpedo actions’, the court second seised should be relieved from the obligation to stay proceedings under the lis pendens rule where the court first seised evidently has no jurisdiction; rejects the idea, however, that claims for negative declaratory relief should be excluded altogether from the first-in-time rule on the ground that such claims can have a legitimate commercial purpose; considers, however, that issues concerning jurisdiction would be best resolved in the context of proposals to create a Unified Patent Litigation System;

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 19 a (new)

Jurisdiction over consumer contracts 19a. Calls the Commission to ensure the aim of a complete protection of the "weaker party" in the Brussels I Regulation and its jurisdiction rules by introducing the possibility to rely on the jurisdiction over consumer contracts even in cases where the consumers assigned their claim to interest-representations in order to enable efficient appropriate legal action in cross-border issues;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 19 b (new)

19b. Considers that the aim must be coherence between Private International Law, in particular Rome I Regulation No 593/2008/EC and European Civil Procedure Law in particular Brussels I Regulation No 44/2001/EC and therefore asks the Commission to set aside present inconsistencies, e.g. by including a definition of "the professional" as the other party to the consumer contract in Article 15 paragraph 1 of the Brussels I Regulation to comply with the elements of the definition according to Article 6 paragraph 1 Rome I Regulation and by replacing the unclear expression "contract which, for an inclusive price, provides for a combination of travel and accommodation" by an explicit and clear reference in Article 15 paragraph 3 of the Brussels I Regulation to the Package Travel Directive 90/314/EC and its meaning as this is the case in Article 6 paragraph 4 litera b of the Rome I Regulation;

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 19 c (new)

Jurisdiction with regard to labour disputes 19c. Asks the Commission to create a jurisdiction for industrial actions in order to avoid forum shopping and to ensure coherence with Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II); the competent court should be the court of the Member State where the action has been taking place;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 19 d (new)

Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment 19d. Calls on the Commission to find a solution for employees who do not carry out their work in a single Member State (e.g. long-distance lorry drivers, flight attendants) under the jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment; these employees should have the opportunity to benefit from the special jurisdiction;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. ~~Endorses~~Believes that the rule in Shevill needs to be qualified; considers, ~~however~~therefore, that, in order to mitigate the alleged tendency of courts in certain jurisdictions to accept territorial jurisdiction where there is only a weak connection with the country in which the action is brought, a recital should be added to clarify that, in principle, the courts of that country should accept jurisdiction only where there is a sufficient, substantial or significant link with that country; considers that this would be ~~sufficiently protective of freedom of expression, the right to a private life and the right to one’s good reputation~~helpful in striking a better balance between the interests at stake;

Amendment 47 #

Klaus-Heiner LEHNE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. ~~Endorses the rule in Shevill; considers, however, that,~~Argues that as a consequence of Shevill and in order to mitigate the alleged tendency of courts in certain jurisdictions to accept territorial jurisdiction where there is only a weak connection with the country in which the action is brought, a r~~ecital should be added to clarify that, in principle,~~ule could clarify that the courts of that country should accept jurisdiction only ~~where there is a sufficient, substantial or significant link with~~if the publisher in question is established in that country or if the media was mainly distributed in that country; considers that this would be sufficiently protective of freedom of expression, the right to a private life and the right to one's good reputation;

Amendment 48 #

Françoise CASTEX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraphe 20

20. ~~Endor~~Stresses the ~~rule in~~need of an evolution of Shevill; considers~~, however,~~ that, in order to mitigate the alleged tendency of courts in certain jurisdictions to accept territorial jurisdiction where there is only a weak connection with the country in which the action is brought, a recital should be added to clarify that~~, in principle,~~ the courts of that country should accept jurisdiction only where there is a sufficient, substantial or significant link with that country; ~~considers that this would be sufficiently protective of freedom of expression, the right to a private life and the right to one's good reputation;~~

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

Provisional measures 20a. Considers that, in order to ensure better access to justice, orders aimed at obtaining information and evidence or at preserving evidence should be covered by the notion of provisional and protective measures;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I c (new)

Ic. whereas it appears from the intense debate raised by the proposal to create an exclusive head of jurisdiction for court proceedings supporting arbitration in the civil courts of the Member States that the Member States have not reached a common position thereon and that it would be counterproductive, having regard to world competition in this area, to try to force their hand,

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)

20b. Believes that the Regulation should establish jurisdiction for such measures at the courts of the Member State where the information or evidence sought is located, in addition to the jurisdiction of the courts having jurisdiction with respect to the substance;

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 c (new)

20c. Finds that "provisional, including protective measures" should be defined in a recital in the terms used in the St Paul Dairy case;

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 d (new)

20d. Considers that the distinction drawn in Van Uden between cases in which the court granting the measure has jurisdiction over the substance of the case and cases in which it does not, should be replaced by a test based on the question of whether measures are sought in support of proceedings issued or to be issued in that Member State or a non-Member State (in which case the restrictions set out in Article 31 should not apply) or in support of proceedings in another Member State (in which case the Article 31 restrictions should apply);

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 e (new)

20e. Urges, that a recital be introduced, in order to overcome the difficulties posed by the requirement recognised in Van Uden for a “real connecting link” to the territorial jurisdiction of the Member State court granting such a measure, to make it clear that in deciding whether to grant, renew, modify or discharge a provisional measure granted in support of proceedings in another Member State, Member State courts should take into account all of the circumstances, including (i) any statement by the Member State court seised of the main dispute with respect to the measure in question or measures of the same kind, (ii) whether there is a real connecting link between the measure sought and the territory of the Member State in which it is sought, and (iii) the likely impact of the measure on proceedings pending or to be issued in another Member State;

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 f (new)

20f. Rejects the Commission's idea that the court seised of the main proceedings should be able to discharge, modify or adapt provisional measures granted by a court from another Member State since this would not be in the spirit of the principle of mutual trust established by the Regulation; considers, moreover, that it is unclear on what basis a court could review a decision made by a court in a different jurisdiction and which law would apply in these circumstances, and that this could give rise to real practical problems, for example with regard to costs;

Amendment 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Considers, on account of the special difficulties of private international law, the importance of Union conflicts-of-law legislation for business, citizens and international litigators and the need for a consistent body of case law, that it is time to set up a special chamber within the Court of Justice to deal with references for preliminary rulings relating to private international law;deleted

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Stresses the need for consistency between any proposals for special jurisdiction rules for collective actions and the Commissions' forthcoming work on collective redress instruments;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I d (new)

Id. whereas the various national procedural devices developed to protect arbitral jurisdiction (anti-suit injunctions so long as they are in conformity with free movement of persons and fundamental rights, declaration of validity of an arbitration clause, grant of damages for breach of an arbitration clause, the negative effect of the 'Kompetenz- Kompetenz principle', etc. must continue to be available and the effect of such procedures and the ensuing court decisions in the other Member States must be left to the law of those Member States as was the position prior to the judgment in West Tankers,

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)

Ja. whereas third parties may be bound by a choice-of-court agreement (for instance in a bill of lading) to which they have not specifically assented and that this may adversely affect their access to justice and be manifestly unfair and whereas, therefore, the effect of choice-of-court agreements in respect of third parties needs to be dealt with in a specific provision of the Regulation,

Amendment 8 #

Françoise CASTEX

Motion for a resolution
Recital L

L. whereas, as regards rights of the personality, the media complain that the ~~internet, in particular, and the readiness of the courts in certain Member States to accept jurisdiction, creates problems for the media because of the ruling in Shevill;~~current rules on jurisdiction and applicable law, which give claimants much scope for "forum shopping" and "law shopping", have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and may jeopardise the cross-border distribution of the media, particularly via the Internet, whereas this problem will be considered specifically in a legislative initiative on the Rome II Regulation;, whereas, nevertheless, some guidance may be given to national courts in the amended regulation,

Amendment 9 #