Abstract
The aim of this chapter is a profound analysis of conflicting parallel proceedings in cross-border cases starting with a difficult definition of the ‘identity ratione materiae’ of two claims. Even the language versions of the provision of Article 29 Brussels I bis Regulation reflect different national approaches using wording the of ‘same cause of action’, ‘same claim’ and even two elements, namely ‘same object and same cause of action’. The CJEU, although only partially in a few cases, simply stated and interpreted all of the above in the same way. Furthermore, the CJEU explained the requirement of ‘the same end in view’ and defined the negative declaratory action. An object of the subsequent action for a negative declaration might well have been introduced as a defence to the previous action. On the EU level, a lis pendens exists even in cases where the claims are not completely the same, but they are mutually exclusive. Mutually exclusive claims exist when the grant of the first claim automatically means that the second claim is excluded, and similarly, when the rejection of the first claim automatically implies that the second claim is justified. Therefore, the relationship between a positive action and a negative declaratory action is a typical example of mutually exclusive claims. Nevertheless, the cross-border cases still demonstrate unsolved complexity of the first pending negative declaratory actions. The author analyses the requirements from Brussels I bis Regulation which are not entirely regulated at the unified level and refer to national law (legal interest for declaratory action, the necessary precision of the negative declaratory claim, beginning of pendency, requests to the claimant in order to achieve the effect of lis pendens, later amendments of a lawsuit, which procedural act constitutes acceptance of jurisdiction, the conduct of the second court becoming cognisant of a prior proceeding, the conduct of the second court after the first court accepts its jurisdiction. Special issues are also if the later positive action for performance being stopped by negative declaratory action may then be submitted as a counterclaim. The author also discusses the position of the defendant in litigation initiated by negative declaratory action regarding his claim, considering the statute of limitations. Finally, the author finds the Brussels I bis Regulation regime still unsatisfactory in the prevention of the risk of forum Shopping and forum running.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Hess (2021), p. 13.
- 2.
Bisello et al. (2015), p. 4.
- 3.
In German ‘objektive Identität des Anspruchs’.
- 4.
Thus, in English law usage it refers to the facts that are necessary to support a claim to a particular remedy, and so combines objet and cause. The English version of Brussels I Regulation therefore simply refers to ‘proceedings involving the same cause of action’.
- 5.
C-144/86, Gubisch Maschinenfabrik KG v Giulio Palumbo, 8.12.1987, ECLI:EU:C:1987:528.
- 6.
The English language version of Gubisch Maschinenfabrik refers to the ‘subject-matter’ of the action rather than the ‘object’, but the ‘object of the action’ is now the standard terminology.
- 7.
C-111/01, Gantner Electronic GmbH v Basch Exploitatie Maatschappij BV, 8.5.2003, ECLI:EU:C:2002:724, para 25.
- 8.
Christofi & Loizou (2020).
- 9.
Ude (2017), p. 215.
- 10.
Ude et al. (2010), p. 223.
- 11.
Ude et al. (2009), p. 161.
- 12.
Bylander & Linton (2020).
- 13.
Prodinger & Nunner-Krautgasser (2020).
- 14.
CJEU in Gubisch case (as per English translation) talked about the ‘subject-matter’ of the action to translate ‘objet’. In The Tatry, it talks about the ‘object’ of the action.
- 15.
The Gubisch case presented, on the one hand, an action for the performance of a sales contract, whereby the seller sought payment of the price from the buyer. On the other hand, it presented an action for a negative declaration, whereby the buyer sought a declaration holding either that the contract was null and void or that the seller had committed a fundamental breach of the contract, discharging the buyer from his obligations. Bisello et al. (2015), p. 7.
- 16.
Martiny (2009): ‘Miteinander unvereinbar sind etwa eine Klage auf Kaufpreiszahlung und eine solche auf Auflösung des ihr zugrunde liegenden Vertrags. Sie haben die gleiche ‘Grundlage’, beziehen sich auf dieselben Kernpunkte des Streits’.
- 17.
See Ude et al. (2006), p. 222.
- 18.
Ude et al. (2006), p. 222.
- 19.
C-351/96, Drouot Assurances SA v Consolidated metallurgical industries and Others, 19.05.1998, ECLI:EU:C:1998:242, para 19.
- 20.
Bylander & Linton (2020).
- 21.
Hess (2021), p. 8.
- 22.
Ude et al. (2009), p. 181.
- 23.
In Case C-406/92, The owners of the cargo lately laden on board the ship “Tatry” v the owners of the ship “Maciej Rataj”, 6.12.1994, ECLI:EU:C:1994:400, an action for a negative declaration was instituted in the Netherlands by the owners of a ship, wherein they tried to exclude their liability for damage to the ship’s cargo before the owners of the cargo sued them in England to recover damages. The Tatry’s facts are reversed from those in Gubisch: in The Tatry the action for a negative declaration preceded that for performance so that it could not be said that the object of the latter action could have been introduced as a defence in the first proceedings. In fact, in accordance with the domestic legal conceptions of various Member States, the object of the latter action appeared broader than that of the former. Nonetheless, the Court still held that the same question lay at the heart of the two actions (the shipowners’ liability for damage to the cargo) and believed that the subsequent claim for damages might well be considered dependent on a ruling finding the shipowners liable, as that was the main object of the action subsequently introduced by the owners of the cargo; Bisello et al. (2015), p. 7.
- 24.
Ude et al. (2006), p. 221.
- 25.
E.g.: Judgment of the Supreme Court of Slovenia II Ips 652/92 of 20.5.1993, judgment and decision II Ips 171/95 of 8.10.1997: ‘If the plaintiff requests that the existence of a legal relationship (joint property) be established, the defendant cannot claim that this relationship does not exist’, e.g., A’s claim against B to establish ‘that A is the owner of thing X’ and B’s claim against A to establish ‘that B is the owner of thing X’. Admitting the first claim automatically means that the second claim is unfounded, but the opposite is not true: if the court rejects the claim to establish A’s property right, it does not automatically mean that he is the owner of B. Both actions are therefore admissible.
- 26.
VSMB, I Cpg 263/2016, 15.07.2016, ECLI:SI:VSMB:2016:I.CPG.263.2016.
- 27.
Galle et al. (2016).
- 28.
Martiny (2009): ‘Miteinander unvereinbar sind etwa eine Klage auf Kaufpreiszahlung und eine solche auf Auflösung des ihr zugrunde liegenden Vertrags. Sie haben die gleiche ‘Grundlage’, beziehen sich auf dieselben Kernpunkte des Streits’.
- 29.
E.g., in Croatia the litigation is pending as of the day the claim is served on the defendant. If the request has been raised by the party in the course of the proceedings, it is pending once the counter-party has been informed of the request. Article 194 (1, 2) CPA. The same applies in Slovenia.
- 30.
Gottwald (2017), Article 32.
- 31.
Beschluss Republik Österreich Oberster Gerichtshof, N 1 Ob 63/20a, https://rdb.manz.at/document/ris.just.JJT_20200428_OGH0002_0010OB00063_20A0000_000/formats/ris.just.JJT_20200428_OGH0002_0010OB00063_20A0000_000.pdf.
- 32.
- 33.
Ballon et al. (2013), paras 84, 85.
- 34.
Mankowski and Magnus (2016), para 757: The court can be seised at a given moment only in relation to claims advanced at that moment, not in relation to anticipated issues. Again, the principle suggests that a claimant should not be allowed to treat the issue of the claim as a means of reserving the first court’s jurisdiction over claims advanced later, and should be held to the procedural consequences of subsequently changing its case. This fragmental view of a dispute would also appear to be consistent with the position of UK Supreme court.
- 35.
Mankowski and Magnus (2016), para 757.
- 36.
Schlosser (2009), p. 149.
- 37.
Bisello et al. (2015), p. 10.
- 38.
The solution follows the Green Book, Cf: Rogerson (2015), p. 330.
- 39.
Rogerson (2015), p. 330.
- 40.
Slovenian and Austrian civil procedure rules.
- 41.
Schlosser (2009), p. 146.
- 42.
C-341/93, Danværn Production A/S v Schuhfabriken Otterbeck GmbH & Co, 13.7.1995, ECLI:EU:C:1995:239.
- 43.
Ibid.
- 44.
C-185/15, Marjan Kostanjevec v F&S Leasing GmbH, 12.10.2016, ECLI:EU:C:2016:763.
- 45.
VSRS sodba in sklep II Ips 7/2012, 19.12.2016, ECLI:SI:VSRS:2016:II.IPS.7.2012.
- 46.
VSRS sklep II Ips 906/2008, 05.04.2012, ECLI:SI:VSRS:2012:II.IPS.906.2008.
- 47.
Nuyts (2007), p. 70.
- 48.
It would be interesting to survey Europe wide case law/articles on this subject which was not possible for this chapter.
- 49.
Case C-116/02, Erich Gasser GmbH v MISAT Srl., 9.12.2003, ECLI: EU: C: 2003: 657, shows that the ECJ had the opportunity to decide on the misuse of a torpedo lawsuit in breach of Article 6 of the ECHR.
- 50.
Nuyts (2007), p. 70: If the court did not address as such the issue of the abuse of the process, a silence which cannot be criticised since this question was not raised by referring court and since there was under specific circumstances true, the court did rule that delaying and running for forum tactics are not as such the question of the interpretation of any provision of Brussels I Regulation as deduced from its wording and purpose but that should not be as such a subject for disapproval. Indeed, this seems to be plainly correct and in accordance with settled case law: the way the EU rules are interpreted is not to be altered only because there is a possibility that, under such interpretation some parties might engage in abusive actions or behaviour. But at the same time the national courts keep the residual power, or even duty, to verify in view of that all that has taken place in law and fact, that the rules EU are not relied upon abusively by the parties. Pursuant to the EU general principle of abuse of right, which under the most recent case law seems to have received a general scope of application, the national courts are entitled to even required, when a manifest abuse occurs, to deny the abusing party the benefit of the provision of EU law he seeks to rely upon.
- 51.
Bisello et al. (2015), p. 11.
- 52.
Granting anti-suit injunctions by the court, forum non conveniens doctrine, eliminating the option of negative declaratory action and improving the existing system of dealing with parallel proceedings.
- 53.
Bisello et al. (2015), p. 12.
References
Ballon O et al (2013) Paras 84–85. In: Fasching H, Konecny A (eds) Kommentar zu den Zivilprozessegesetzen. MANZ Verlag, Wien
Bisello G, Cognetti C, Lo Gerfo F (2015) Deactivating the Italian Torpedo. https://www.ejtn.eu/Documents/Themis%20Luxembourg/Written_paper_Italy3.pdf
Bylander E, Linton M (2020) National report for Sweden. Project EU-En4s — JUST-AG-2018/JUST-JCOO-AG-2018
Christofi D, Loizou D (2020) National report for Cyprus. Project EU-En4s — JUST-AG-2018/JUST-JCOO-AG-2018
Galle M, Hosseinian Sereshki A, Romero S (2016) The race to the court in the light of the Brussels I recast – an improvement in preventing the torpedo tactics? https://www.ejtn.eu/PageFiles/14777/Written%20paper_Germany.pdf
Geimer (2004) Lis pendens in der Europäischen Union. In: Coester M, Sonnenberger H (eds) Festschrift für Hans Jürgen Sonnenberger zum 70. Geburtstag
Gottwald P et al (2017) Münchener Kommentar zur ZPO, 5th edn. Ia-VO, Brüssel
Hess B (2021) Reforming the Brussels Ibis Regulation: perspectives and prospects. Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law Research Paper, Series 4
Mankowski M, Magnus U (2016) European commentaries on private international law ECPIL. Otto Schmidt, München
Martiny D (2009) Rechtshängigkeit. HWB-EuP
Nuyts A (2007) The enforcement of jurisdiction agreements further to gasser and the community principle of abuse of right. In: De Vareilles-Sommières P (ed) Forum shopping in the European judicial area. Bloomsbury Publishing, Oxford
Prodinger L, Nunner-Krautgasser B (2020) National report for Austria. Project EU-En4s — JUST-AG-2018/JUST-JCOO-AG-2018
Rogerson P (2015) Lis pendens and related actions. In: Dickinson A, Lein E (eds) The Brussels I Regulation recast. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 321–355
Schlosser P (2009) EU-Zivilprozessrecht, 3rd edn. C. H. Beck
Ude L (2017) Civilno procesno pravo. Uradni list RS, Ljubljana
Ude L, Betetto N, Galič A et al (2006) Pravdni postopek: zakon s komentarjem, 2.knjiga. Uradni list RS, GV Založba, Ljubljana
Ude L, Betetto N, Galič A et al (2009) Pravdni postopek: zakon s komentarjem, 3. Knijga. Uradni list RS, GV Založba, Ljubljana
Ude L, Betetto N, Galič A et al (2010) Pravdni postopek: zakon s komentarjem, 4. knjiga Uradni list RS, GV Založba, Ljubljana
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rijavec, V. (2023). Pendency Rules. In: Rijavec, V., Kennett, W., Keresteš, T., Ivanc, T. (eds) Diversity of Enforcement Titles in the EU. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 111. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47108-7_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47108-7_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-47107-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-47108-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)