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

In case of plea for related action, the court second seized may stay proceedings. The stay of proceedings is not mandatory as for lis pendens. This is a mere possibility for the court second seized, which may decide to continue proceedings without taking the result of the action brought in the Member State of the court first seized into account. The court second seized may also decline jurisdiction, but this possibility is strictly framed: 1) the parties must ask for it; 2) the actions must be pending at first instance; 3) the court first seized must have jurisdiction; 4) the law of the court second seized must permit the consolidation of proceedings. 

Since the plea of related action may only be relied on before the court second seized, the order of seizin must be determined. Article 32 of Regulation No 1215/2012 lays down a presumption of time of seizin, in two cases which correspond to the two data frames in force in the Member States, i.e. either at the time when the document instituting the proceedings is lodged with the court (when it comes before service), or at the time when the document instituting proceedings is received by the authority responsible for service (when service comes before lodging). Before, the Court of Justice entrusted the court seized with the determination of the conditions of a definite seizin according to the rules of national law . In practice, proceedings instituted before the entry into force of the regulation remain subject to that solution.

Case 129/83 Zelger v Salinitri [1984] ECR 2397, LawLex200900001521JBJ.

365. Settlement of the plea of related action