Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Provisional Measures with a Cross-Border Element: Their Issuance, Co-existence, Recognition, and Enforcement

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Diversity of Enforcement Titles in the EU

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 111))

  • 60 Accesses

Abstract

The chapter begins by outlining the rules regarding the two-track jurisdiction for issuing provisional measures and the different requirements for their cross-border recognition and enforcement in another Member State. It then touches upon some of the relevant issues related to provisional measures, drawing on (and at the same time questioning to a considerable extent) the recent case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (specifically Case C-581/20, Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO SpA - Costruzioni Generali and Vianini Lavori SpA of date 6 October 2021). Furthermore, it analyses the relationship between several provisional measures or the procedures for issuing them (lis pendens). It examines the validity and direct and indirect effects of the parties’ choice-of-court agreement for jurisdiction to issue a provisional measure. In the last section, the chapter deals with the problem of provisional measures that are substantively the same as the claim.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 351, 20.12.2012 (hereinafter ‘Brussels I bis Regulation’).

  2. 2.

    Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 1972 L 299, 31.12.1972 (hereinafter ‘Brussels Convention’).

  3. 3.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2001 L 12, 16.1.2001 (hereinafter ‘Regulation 44/2001’).

  4. 4.

    For the difficulties encountered in the different national versions of the translation of this term, see Pogorelčnik Vogrinc (2020), pp. 131 et seq. In order to avoid confusion and for the sake of brevity, only the term ‘provisional measures’ will thus be used in this chapter.

  5. 5.

    See, for example, Case C-186/19, Supreme Sites Services and Others, 3.9.2020, ECLI:EU: C:2020:638, para 49.

  6. 6.

    Case C-261/90, Reichert and Kockler v Dresdner Bank, 26.3.1992, ECLI:EU:C:1992:149, para 34; Case C-391/95, Van Uden Maritime BV, trading as Van Uden Africa Line, and Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line and Another, 17.11.1998, ECLI:EU:C:1998:543, para 37; and recently also Case C-186/19, Supreme Sites Services, para 50.

  7. 7.

    Case C-104/03, St. Paul Dairy Industries NV v Unibel Exser BVBA, 28.4.2005, ECLI:EU: C:2005:255, para 12.

  8. 8.

    The Opinion of AG Rantos in Case C-581/20, Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO SpA – Costruzioni Generali, Vianini Lavori SpA, 9.9.2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:726, para 36.

  9. 9.

    The Opinion of AG Rantos in Case C-581/20, Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO SpA – Costruzioni Generali, Vianini Lavori SpA, 9.9.2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:726, para 37.

  10. 10.

    Thus, although they are closely linked to enforcement, provisional measures do not fall within the scope of enforcement matters for which exclusive jurisdiction is provided in Art. 24(V) of Brussels I bis Regulation. It states that ‘in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the Member State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced’.

  11. 11.

    The CJEU has confirmed the two-track system of jurisdiction in several of its decisions. See Case C-391/95, Van Uden Maritime BV, trading as Van Uden Africa Line, and Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line and Another, 17.11.1998, ECLI:EU:C:1998:543, para 19, and Case C-99/96, Hans-Hermann Mietz v Intership Yachting Sneek BV, 27.4.1999, ECLI:EU:C:1999:202, paras 38 and 40.

  12. 12.

    Recital 33 of Brussels I bis Regulation, on the other hand, expressly provides for this.

  13. 13.

    The provisional measures protect the effectiveness of the main procedure by either securing the effectiveness of the future enforcement of the creditor’s claim or providing temporary regulation of the legal relation in dispute.

  14. 14.

    The Opinion of AG Rantos in Case C-581/20, Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO SpA – Costruzioni Generali, Vianini Lavori SpA, 9.9.2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:726, footnote 16.

  15. 15.

    Pertegás Sender and Garber (2016), p. 789.

  16. 16.

    Pogorelčnik Vogrinc (2020), p. 135.

  17. 17.

    Case C-125/79, Bernhard Denilauler v SNC Couchet Frères, 21.5.1980, EU: ECLI:C:1980:130, para 18.

  18. 18.

    Case C-616/10, Solvay SA v Honeywell Fluorine Products Europe BV and Others, 12.7.2012, ECLI:EU: C:2012:445, para 40.

  19. 19.

    Case C-391/95, Van Uden Maritime BV, trading as Van Uden Africa Line, and Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line and Another, 17.11.1998, ECLI:EU:C:1998:543, para 40.

  20. 20.

    Rijavec (2018a), p. 402 emphasizes that provisional measure issued prior to the decision as to the substance might deprive the debtor of the right to a defense. Therefore, only in exceptional cases can a provisional measure be equivalent to the main claim. For a detailed analysis of requirements needed in such cases, see Pogorelčnik Vogrinc (2020), p. 142.

  21. 21.

    Nuyts (2016), p. 366, para 12.30 emphasises the aim of such a requirement as: ‘imposing the condition that assets be located within the territory of the granting court is meant to ensure that the defendant will have access to some resources in this territory which guarantee that he will get his money back if he is ultimately successful.

  22. 22.

    Case C-391/95, Van Uden, Van Uden Maritime BV, trading as Van Uden Africa Line, and Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line and Another, 17.11.1998, ECLI:EU:C:1998:543, para 47.

  23. 23.

    The CJEU emphasised in Case C-99/96, Hans-Hermann Mietz v Intership Yachting Sneek BV, 27.4.1999, ECLI:EU:C:1999:202, para 41, that ‘the court having jurisdiction as to the substance of a case also has jurisdiction to order provisional or protective measures, without that jurisdiction being subject to any further conditions’. For more details, see subchapter 2.

  24. 24.

    Brussels I bis Regulation pursues the objective of preventing forum shopping. Rijavec (2018a), p. 29.

  25. 25.

    For a thorough analysis of this issue, see Pogorelčnik Vogrinc (2020), pp. 144–147.

  26. 26.

    Pertegás Sender and Garber (2016), pp. 791–792, para 29.

  27. 27.

    Rijavec (2018b), p. 240; Pertegás Sender and Garber (2016), p. 793.

  28. 28.

    Heinze (2011), pp. 607–608. A similar opinion can also be found in Pertegás Sender and Garber (2016), pp. 791–792, para 29.

  29. 29.

    Pertegás Sender and Garber (2016), p. 792, para 31; Cuniberti and Rueda (2016), p. 854, para 18.

  30. 30.

    Nuyts (2016), p. 102.

  31. 31.

    Undoubtedly, both provisional measures have to be issued between the same parties; however, it is not obligatory that both of the parties participate in both of the provisional measures in the same way or in the same role. A similar opinion can also be found in Fitchen (2016), p. 471, para 13.359.

  32. 32.

    The Opinion of AG Rantos in Case C-581/20, Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO SpA – Costruzioni Generali, Vianini Lavori SpA, 9.9.2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:726, footnote 56, emphasises: ‘By their very nature, measures of that type are adopted or refused on the basis of the facts presented to the court at a specific moment. If those facts change, an initial refusal does not preclude the subsequent grant of an application.’

  33. 33.

    In Case C-80/00, Italian Leather SpA v WECO Polstermöbel GmbH & Co., 6.6.2002, ECLI:EU:C:2002:342, after the Landgericht Koblenz had refused to issue a provisional measure, the Tribunale di Bari granted Italian Leather’s request to restrict WECO from using the LongLife brand name for the marketing of its leather products and therefore decided on an identical case by the same plaintiff against the same defendant.

  34. 34.

    Case C-145/86, Horst Ludwig Martin Hoffmann v Adelheid Krieg, 4.2.1988, ECLI:EU:C:1988:61, para 22. The cases were decided regarding the Brussels Convention; however, its Article 27 is similar to the relevant Article 45 of Brussels I bis Regulation and the argumentation of the CJEU in the decision is therefore still suitable.

  35. 35.

    Case C-80/00, Italian Leather SpA v WECO Polstermöbel GmbH & Co., 6.6.2002, ECLI:EU:C:2002:342, para 47.

  36. 36.

    Ibid, para 44.

  37. 37.

    Fentiman (2016), p. 724, para 28.

  38. 38.

    Case C-104/03, St. Paul Dairy Industries NV v Unibel Exser BVBA, 28.04.2005, ECLI:EU:C:2005:255, para 20.

  39. 39.

    On legal certainty as an objective of the Brussels Convention, see Case C-38/81, Effer SpA v Hans-Joachim Kantner, 4.3.1982, ECLI:EU:C:1982:79, para 6; Case C-440/97, GIE Groupe Concorde and Others v. The Master of the Vessel Suhadiwarno Panjan and Others, 28.9.1999, ECLI:EU:C:1999:456, para 23; Case C-256/00 Besix SA and Wasserreinigungsbau Alfred Kretzschmar GmbH & Co. KG (WABAG), Planungs- und Forschungsgesellschaft Dipl. Ing. W. Kretzschmar GmbH & Co. KG (Plafog), 19.2.2002, ECLI:EU:C:2002:99, para 24.

  40. 40.

    Different views can be found on this. See Hess (2010), p. 370; Hess (2021), p. 420; Rijavec (2018a), p. 403.

  41. 41.

    The Opinion of AG Rantos in Case C-581/20, Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO SpA – Costruzioni Generali, Vianini Lavori SpA, 9.9.2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:726, para 42. In the author’s opinion, AG Rantos expressed himself inaccurately in the mentioned Opinion, para 40: ‘the co-existence of applications for provisional measures before a court with jurisdiction as to the substance and another … which is seised pursuant to Article 35 … provides the party concerned with an option to avoid the delays that are usually associated with importing into one Member State a measure ordered in another.’ While it is true that proposing a provisional measure in a certain state relieves the creditor of the disadvantages associated with the cross-border recognition and enforcement of a provisional measure, this is not enabled by the co-existence of applications for provisional measures, but by the co-existence of the possibilities to propose a measure at courts with different jurisdictions. The co-existence of applications for provisional measures is, in the author’s opinion, not allowed.

  42. 42.

    Of course, this would have to take into account the rules on jurisdiction to issue protective measures and the rules on which protective measures may be subject to recognition and enforcement in another Member State.

  43. 43.

    Francq and Mankowski (2016), p. 920, para 64, and p. 925, para 69.

  44. 44.

    See the Opinion of AG Rantos in Case C-581/20, Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO SpA – Costruzioni Generali, Vianini Lavori SpA, 9.9.2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:726, para 78.

  45. 45.

    Case C-80/00, Italian Leather, Italian Leather SpA v WECO Polstermöbel GmbH & Co., 6.6.2002, ECLI:EU:C:2002:342, para 41.

  46. 46.

    Case C-80/00, Italian Leather, Italian Leather SpA v WECO Polstermöbel GmbH & Co., 6.6.2002, ECLI:EU:C:2002:342, para 42.

  47. 47.

    Ibid, para 52.

  48. 48.

    Case C-581/20, Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO SpA - Costruzioni Generali and Vianini Lavori SpA, 6.10.2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:808.

  49. 49.

    The detailed content of the security proposed by the creditor is irrelevant for the purposes of this chapter.

  50. 50.

    This is exactly how AG Rantos understood and partly reworded the question. See the Opinion of AG Rantos in Case C-581/20, Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO SpA - Costruzioni Generali and Vianini Lavori SpA, 6.10.2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:808, para 75.

  51. 51.

    Case C-581/20, Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO SpA - Costruzioni Generali and Vianini Lavori SpA, 6.10.2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:808, para 59.

  52. 52.

    Ibid, para 60.

  53. 53.

    Ibid, para 61.

  54. 54.

    This was, for example, the situation in Case C-80/00, Italian Leather, Italian Leather SpA v WECO Polstermöbel GmbH & Co., 6.6.2002, ECLI:EU:C:2002:342.

  55. 55.

    For an analysis of the case, see Schlosser (2012), pp. 88–91.

  56. 56.

    Magnus (2016), p. 660, para 152, states that the jurisdiction agreement has a prorogation impact in terms of jurisdiction on provisional measures. The same can also be found in the Opinion of AG Rantos in Case C-581/20, Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO SpA - Costruzioni Generali and Vianini Lavori SpA, 6.10.2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:808, paras 59–60, who says that: ‘In the absence of clear intent, it could be presumed that a choice of forum clause drafted in general terms extends the jurisdiction chosen to the adoption of provisional, including protective, measures. Logically, the presumption would be rebuttable’.

  57. 57.

    The Opinion of AG Rantos in Case C-581/20, Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO SpA - Costruzioni Generali and Vianini Lavori SpA, 6.10.2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:808, paras 65–67, emphasises that parties conclude a jurisdiction agreement to be applied to disputes deriving from a particular legal relationship. Consequently, such an agreement does not apply to specific cases that parties could not have anticipated when concluding the agreement. Nevertheless, in the specific TOTO Case, the parties could have (in Rantos’ opinion) “reasonably foreseen” the specific dispute and consequently that one of them might apply for a related provisional measure. This is, in his opinion, the reason that the agreed-on jurisdiction as to the substance also entails jurisdiction for a provisional measure (as jurisdiction as to the substance).

  58. 58.

    The same can be found in Garcimartin (2016), p. 304, footnote 203, who states that: ‘There is no convincing reasons to deprive the parties of the power to limit that jurisdiction to the chosen court, and there may actually be cases where they have a legitimate interest in doing so’.

  59. 59.

    The same can be found in Magnus (2016), p. 660, para 152: ‘In order not to contradict the aims of Art. 35 – to facilitate prompt relief – the jurisdiction agreement should not be given effect to derogate from the jurisdiction courts would have under their national law’.

  60. 60.

    Case C-616/10, Solvay SA v Honeywell Fluorine Products Europe BV and Others, 12.07.2012, ECLI:EU:C:2012:445, para 40. This is indirectly confirmed also in the Opinion of AG Rantos in Case C-581/20, Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO SpA - Costruzioni Generali and Vianini Lavori SpA, 6.10.2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:808, paras 57 and 58: ‘the question could be asked whether a choice of forum excludes, systematically, the right laid down in Article 35 … The judgment in Italian Leather clarified, in any event, that the jurisdiction referred to in Article 35 can co-exist with that of a different court chosen by the parties to give a definitive ruling on the dispute’.

  61. 61.

    The Opinion of AG Rantos in Case C-581/20, Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO SpA - Costruzioni Generali and Vianini Lavori SpA, 6.10.2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:808, paras 63–64.

  62. 62.

    Case C-222/15, Hőszig Kft. v Alstom Power Thermal Services, 7.7.2016, ECLI:EU:C:2016:525, para 28.

  63. 63.

    Merrett (2016), p. 95, para 21, clarifies that the term ‘provisional and protective’ measures can include different types of measures—among others also interim payments.

  64. 64.

    Case C-391/95, Van Uden Maritime BV, trading as Van Uden Africa Line v Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line and Another, 17.11.1998, ECLI:EU:C:1998:543, para 46. Similar can be found in Case C-99/96, Hans-Hermann Mietz v Intership Yachting Sneek BV, 27.04.1999, ECLI:EU:C:1999:202, para 47, and Case C-104/03, St. Paul Dairy Industries NV v Unibel Exser BVBA, 28.04.2005, ECLI:EU:C:2005:255, para 18. The same position can also be found in the recent Opinion of AG Rantos in Case C-581/20, Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO SpA - Costruzioni Generali and Vianini Lavori SpA, 6.10.2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:808, para 32.

  65. 65.

    Case C-125/79, Bernard Denilauler v SNC Couchet Frères, 21.05.1980, ECLI:EU:C:1980:130, para 18. The decision interpreted the Brussels Convention, but the relevant provisions were comparable with those in Regulation 44/2001. See also Geimer and Schütze (2010), p. 581, paras 97 and 98; Ekart and Rijavec (2010), p. 104; Rijavec (2018b), p. 239, points out that the service of the measure on the debtor must, in any event, be carried out in the Member State of origin, since the form of the certificate has a section in which the court of origin certifies that there is proof of service of the measure on the defendant where the measure was ordered without the defendant being summoned to appear.

  66. 66.

    Case C-391/95, Van Uden Maritime BV, trading as Van Uden Africa Line v Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line and Another, 17.11.1998, ECLI:EU:C:1998:543, para 40. For more, see Pogorelčnik Vogrinc (2020), p. 142.

  67. 67.

    Case C-391/95, Van Uden Maritime BV, trading as Van Uden Africa Line v Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line and Another, 17.11.1998, ECLI:EU:C:1998:543, para 47. The CJEU interpreted this to mean that measures with such content do not qualify as ‘provisional, including protective, measures’ if they do not meet the conditions outlined above (and consequently, the rules on recognition and enforcement do not apply to them).

  68. 68.

    It can be argued that this is a more precise interpretation of the requirement for a real connecting link. A similar opinion can also be found in Cuniberti and Rueda (2016), p. 853, para 15.

  69. 69.

    Geimer and Schütze (2010), p. 565, para 15.

  70. 70.

    However, the CJEU did not determine any additional details with regard to this guarantee. As a result, it was left to each individual court to decide what kind and how much of a guarantee to impose.

  71. 71.

    Pertegás Sender and Garber (2016), p. 803, para 63, p. 791, para 27, and p. 787, para 11.

  72. 72.

    Ibid, p. 803, para 64.

  73. 73.

    Ibid, 791, para 27.

  74. 74.

    Case C-581/20, Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO SpA - Costruzioni Generali and Vianini Lavori SpA, 6.10.2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:808, and Case C-186/19, Supreme Site Services GmbH and Others v Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, 03.09.2020, ECLI:EU:C:2020:638 are the only two that the CJEU has thus far ruled on regarding Article 35 of Brussels I bis Regulation.

  75. 75.

    Pertegás Sender and Garber (2016), p. 800, para 51.

  76. 76.

    Ibid., p. 800, para 51.

  77. 77.

    For more, see Ibid., p. 804, para 65.

  78. 78.

    Cuniberti and Rueda (2016), p. 854, paras 16–17.

  79. 79.

    Case C-581/20, Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO SpA - Costruzioni Generali and Vianini Lavori SpA, 6.10.2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:808, para 52.

  80. 80.

    Nuyts (2016), p. 363, para 12.18.

  81. 81.

    For example, the Slovenian Enforcement and Security Act (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 51/98 of 17 July 1998 with subsequent changes) in its Art. 275(2) provides for the possibility of the court requesting, in order to grant an interim injunction (začasna odredba), that the creditor deposit a security deposit even if they have proven that there is a likelihood that the claim and the risk exist. At the same time, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, in Decision Up-275/97, 16 July 1998, confirmed the existence of regulatory interim injunctions that correspond in substance to the claim in the action and made this conditional on the requirement that it would be possible to restore the previous situation at a later date. Since then, the requirement has been required in the case law in the event of the issuance of an interim injunction of such content, despite the fact that the Slovene legislature has not included the requirement in the relevant Act.

References

  • Cuniberti G, Rueda I (2016) Articles 39–44. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) ECPIL: European Commentaries on Private International Law: Commentary, Brussels Ibis Regulation. Otto Schmidt, pp 836–863

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekart A, Rijavec V (2010) Čezmejna izvršba v EU. GV Založba, Ljubljana

    Google Scholar 

  • Fentiman R (2016) Articles 29–34. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) ECPIL: European Commentaries on Private International Law: Commentary, Brussels Ibis Regulation. Otto Schmidt, pp 725–778

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitchen (2016) The refusal of recognition. In: Dickinson A, Lein E (eds) The Brussels I Regulation Recast. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 432–480

    Google Scholar 

  • Francq S, Mankowski P (2016) Article 45. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) ECPIL: European Commentaries on Private International Law: Commentary, Brussels Ibis Regulation. Otto Schmidt, pp 863–953

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcimartin (2016) Prorogation of Jurisdiction - Choice of Court Agreements and Submission (Arts. 25–26). In: Dickinson A, Lein E (eds) The Brussels I Regulation Recast. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 277–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Geimer R, Schütze R (2010) Europäisches Zivilverfahrensrecht: Kommentar. Verlag C. H. Beck

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinze C (2011) Choice of court agreements, coordination of proceedings and provisional measures in the reform of the Brussels I Regulation. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 75:581–618. https://doi.org/10.1628/003372511796351368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess B (2010) Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht. C. F. Miller

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess B (2021) Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht, 2nd edn. De Gruyter

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnus U (2016) Article 25. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) ECPIL: European Commentaries on Private International Law: Commentary, Brussels Ibis Regulation. Otto Schmidt, pp 584–669

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Merrett L (2016) Article 2. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) ECPIL: European Commentaries on Private International Law: Commentary, Brussels Ibis Regulation. Otto Schmidt, pp 86–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuyts A (2016) Provisional, including protective measures (Art. 35). In: Dickinson A, Lein E (eds) The Brussels I Regulation Recast. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 357–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Pertegás Sender M, Garber T (2016) Article 35. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) ECPIL: European Commentaries on Private International Law: Commentary, Brussels Ibis Regulation. Otto Schmidt, pp 778–813

    Google Scholar 

  • Pogorelčnik Vogrinc N (2020) Provisional security of creditors in cross-border civil and commercial matters. Lexonomica 12(2):129–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijavec V (2018a) Final Assessment of Brussels I Recast. In: Rijavec V, Kennett W, Keresterš T et al (eds) Remedies Concerning Enforcement of Foreign Judgmenents, Brussels I Recast. Wolters Kluwer, pp 359–421

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijavec V (2018b) VI. Začasni ukrepi. In: Repas M, Rijavec V (eds) Mednarodno zasebno pravo Evropske unije. Uradni list Republike Slovenije, Ljubljana, pp 236–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser P (2012) Aus Frankreich Neues zum transantionalen einstweiligen Rechtsshutz in der EU. Iprax 1:88–91

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Law, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Neža Pogorelčnik Vogrinc

Authors
  1. Neža Pogorelčnik Vogrinc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neža Pogorelčnik Vogrinc .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia

    Vesna Rijavec

  2. Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

    Wendy Kennett

  3. Faculty of Law, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia

    Tomaž Keresteš

  4. Faculty of Law, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia

    Tjaša Ivanc

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Vogrinc, N.P. (2023). Provisional Measures with a Cross-Border Element: Their Issuance, Co-existence, Recognition, and Enforcement. 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_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47108-7_13

  • 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation