Ugljesa Grusic

Cheshire, North and Fawcett: Private International Law

PART I: INTRODUCTION PART II: PRELIMINARY TOPICS PART III: JURISDICTION, FOREIGN JUDGMENTS AND AWARDS PART IV: THE LAW OF OBLIGATIONS PART V: FAMILY LAW PART VI: THE LAW OF PROPERTY

JURISDICTION IN EMPLOYMENT MATTERS UNDER BRUSSELS I: A REASSESSMENT

This article examines the rules of jurisdiction in employment matters of Brussels I. It focuses on a paradox in that these rules aim to protect employees jurisdictionally, but in fact fail to accord employees a more favourable treatment when they need it most, namely when they appear as claimants. The article argues that the current rules fail to achieve the objective of employee protection, examines the reasons for this, proposes certain amendments that would improve the existing rules, and thereby engages in the debate surrounding the forthcoming review of Brussels I.

SHOULD THE CONNECTING FACTOR OF THE ‘ENGAGING PLACE OF BUSINESS’ BE ABOLISHED IN EUROPEAN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW?

In Case C-384/10 Jan Voogsgeerd v Navimer SA the ECJ dealt with a number of issues concerning the choice-of-law rules for employment contracts of the Rome Convention, most importantly the relationship between the connecting factors of the habitual place of work and the engaging place of business, and the interpretation of the latter connecting factor. After demonstrating that the ECJ has deprived it of almost any effect, that it leads to excessive legal uncertainty, unforeseeability of the outcome of litigation, and does not support the objectives of employee protection and proximity, this article concludes that the connecting factor of the engaging place of business should be abolished in European private international law.

Jurisdiction in Complex Contracts Under the Brussels I Regulation

This article explores how the Brussels I Regulation deals with the allocation of jurisdiction in complex contracts, ie contracts involving either one obligation or a multiplicity of obligations with multiple places of performance. It presents the ECJs approach to this issue under Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention (which approach is still relevant under Article 5(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation) and Article 5(1)(b) Brussels I Regulation, and evaluates the two approaches. It concludes that Article 5(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation is an improvement over Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention and recommends widening its scope.

Recognition and enforcement of judgments in employment matters in EU private international law

This article deals with the recognition and enforcement of judgments in employment matters in EU private international law. After looking into the theoretical underpinnings of the protection of employees by rules of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, this article examines the recognition and enforcement of judgments concerning individual employment contracts under the Recast of the Brussels I Regulation, the European Enforcement Order Regulation and the European Order for Payment Procedure Regulation. It is shown that the lack of a jurisdictional defence for employment disputes in the latter two instruments has the potential to undermine, at the overlap of the fields of application of these instruments and the Brussels I Recast, the protection offered to employees by the Recast’s jurisdictional defence.

Responsibility in Groups of Companies and the Future of International Human Rights and Environmental Litigation

This contribution notes the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Thompson v. Renwick, in which the court refused to impose a direct duty of care on the parent company to protect employees of its subsidiary from the risk of injury arising out of exposure to asbestos at work. In confirming that the exceptions to the principles of separate legal personality of companies and their limited liability apply only in truly exceptional circumstances, this judgment has the potential to set back the existing efforts within the European Union to ensure effective judicial remedy for corporate human rights and environmental abuses.

Contractual networks in European private international law

This article examines private international law issues raised by transnational contractual networks. The focus is on choice-of-law questions that arise in the context of 1) relations between network members who are contractually bound to one another, 2) relations between network members not connected directly by bonds of contract, and 3) relations between the network and the outsiders. The aim is to assess whether, and to what extent, European private international law is capable of dealing with some of the key challenges posed by contemporary economic and social activity.

Long-term business relationships and implicit contracts in European private law

Abstract In Granarolo, the European Court of Justice held that a dispute between a distributor and its supplier concerning an action for damages for the abrupt termination of a long-term business relationship, which was not expressed in a framework, umbrella contract, was a matter relating to a contract for the purposes of European private international law. This note explores the wider significance of Granarolo for the meaning of ‘contract’ in European contract law.

The evolving jurisdiction of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

This article deals with the examination of the jurisdictional requirements for ICSID arbitration set out in Article 25 of the ICSID Convention, as interpreted in ICSID case law. Emphasis is put on some of the most recent jurisdictional problems: competing jurisdictions, extension of MFN clauses to dispute resolution matters, definition of investment, effect of umbrella clauses and widely drafted dispute resolution clauses, and extent to which investors from non-Contracting States can avail themselves of ICSID arbitration. The article concludes that ICSID tribunals have shown a tendency towards liberal interpretation that favours assumption of jurisdiction. This attitude leads to the creation of a global investment protection system where a wide variety of investors, irrespective of their nationality, are able to go before ICSID in protecting their various economic activities, including purely contractual ones.