布鲁塞尔Ia条例中的自由裁量要素

Tobias Bachmeier, Martin Freytag
{"title":"布鲁塞尔Ia条例中的自由裁量要素","authors":"Tobias Bachmeier, Martin Freytag","doi":"10.1080/17441048.2022.2104683","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Following continental European traditions, the Brussels Ia Regulation forms a rigid regime of mandatory heads of jurisdiction, generally not providing jurisdictional discretion. Nonetheless, to some limited extent, the Brussels regime includes discretional elements, in particular when it comes to lis pendens (see Articles 30, 33 and 34 of Brussels Ia). Reconsidering the strong scepticism towards forum non conveniens stipulated by the CJEU in its Owusu case, the fundamental question arises whether a substantial form of discretion concerning jurisdictional competence might be (in)compatible with the core principles of the Brussels regime.","PeriodicalId":44028,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Private International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discretional elements in the Brussels Ia Regulation\",\"authors\":\"Tobias Bachmeier, Martin Freytag\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17441048.2022.2104683\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Following continental European traditions, the Brussels Ia Regulation forms a rigid regime of mandatory heads of jurisdiction, generally not providing jurisdictional discretion. Nonetheless, to some limited extent, the Brussels regime includes discretional elements, in particular when it comes to lis pendens (see Articles 30, 33 and 34 of Brussels Ia). Reconsidering the strong scepticism towards forum non conveniens stipulated by the CJEU in its Owusu case, the fundamental question arises whether a substantial form of discretion concerning jurisdictional competence might be (in)compatible with the core principles of the Brussels regime.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Private International Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Private International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2022.2104683\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Private International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2022.2104683","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

遵循欧洲大陆的传统,《布鲁塞尔Ia条例》形成了一个严格的强制性司法主管制度,通常不提供司法自由裁量权。尽管如此,在一定程度上,布鲁塞尔制度包括自由裁量权要素,特别是在未决案件方面(见《布鲁塞尔国际法》第30、33和34条)。重新考虑欧盟法院在Owusu案中对不方便法院的强烈怀疑,根本问题出现了,关于管辖权的实质性自由裁量权是否符合布鲁塞尔制度的核心原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Discretional elements in the Brussels Ia Regulation
Following continental European traditions, the Brussels Ia Regulation forms a rigid regime of mandatory heads of jurisdiction, generally not providing jurisdictional discretion. Nonetheless, to some limited extent, the Brussels regime includes discretional elements, in particular when it comes to lis pendens (see Articles 30, 33 and 34 of Brussels Ia). Reconsidering the strong scepticism towards forum non conveniens stipulated by the CJEU in its Owusu case, the fundamental question arises whether a substantial form of discretion concerning jurisdictional competence might be (in)compatible with the core principles of the Brussels regime.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
25.00%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
The common law marriage in Australian private international law Can private parties contract out of the Hague Service Convention? Sustainability and jurisdiction in the international civil litigation market The EU private international law framework for civil disputes concerning credit ratings: Exploring the status quo and prospects of reform The Brussels IIb Regulation – Most significant changes compared to its predecessor and enhancement of the 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1