European Business Law, the fourth volume in our series, shows how the European authorities simultaneously abolish all restrictions on access to and exercise of economic activities and support the growth of domestic markets, through the harmonization the internal legislation or the enactment of genuinely unified regulations.

European Business Law

The Court of Justice has, in application of the principle that superfluous procedure should be avoided , extended the scope of Article 26 which only expressly refers to the defendant in cases where the plaintiff enters into a dispute on the merits of the case before the court he/she seized in relation to an interlocutory claim made by the defendant and in respect of which the court seized  would o …

Scope

The Court of Justice has, in application of the principle that superfluous procedure should be avoided , extended the scope of Article 26 which only expressly refers to the defendant in cases where the plaintiff enters into a dispute on the merits of the case before the court he/she seized in relation to an interlocutory claim made by the defendant and in respect of which the court seized  would otherwise have no jurisdiction regardless of the basis of the interlocutory claim .

Since the entry into force of Regulation No 1215/2012 on 10 January 2015, when the defendant is the insurance policyholder, an insured party, a beneficiary of the insurance contract, the victim, a consumer or a worker, the court must, before assuming jurisdiction, ensure that the defendant is informed of his or her right to raise a plea of lack of jurisdiction and of the consequences of appearing or not appearing .

The principle that superfluous procedure should be avoided was established by the Court of Justice in a 1971 judgment in connection with the application of Article 25 on the extension of a contract: Case 23-78, Meeth v Glacetal, Judgment of 9 November 197, LawLex200900001695JBJ

Case 48-84 Spitzley v Sommer Exploitation (SA), Judgment of 7 March 1985, LawLex200900002211JBJ, a plaintiff who, faced with a claim for set-off brought by the defendant and for which the court seized lacks jurisdiction, enters an appearance on the merits, without contesting jurisdiction, is in a position equivalent to that of a defendant entering an appearance appearing before the court seized by the plaintiff and does not argue that the court lacks jurisdiction. The basis of the interlocutory claim does not call into question the solution, since the fact that the claim for set-off in this case is based on a contract or a factual situation other than the one which forms the basis of the principal claim is in itself a condition of admissibility under the national law of the court seized.

European Business Law

359. Scope

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

359. Scope

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise