Judgment of the Court; 27 October 1998; Réunion européenne SA and Others v Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV and the Master of the vessel Alblasgracht V002; in Case C-51/97
1. An action by which the consignee of goods found to be damaged on completion of a transport operation by sea and then by land, or by which his insurer who has been subrogated to his rights after compensating him, seeks redress for the damage suffered, relying on the bill of lading covering the maritime transport, not against the person who issued that document on his headed paper but against the person whom the plaintiff considered to be the actual maritime carrier, falls within the scope not of matters relating to a contract within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, but of matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5(3) of that Convention.
2. The place where the consignee of the goods, on completion of a transport operation by sea and then by land, merely discovered the existence of the damage to the goods delivered to him cannot serve to determine the `place where the harmful event occurred' within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Convention of 28 September 1968, as interpreted by the Court.
3. Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that a defendant domiciled in a Contracting State cannot be sued in another Contracting State before a court seised of an action against a co-defendant not domiciled in a Contracting State on the ground that the dispute is indivisible rather than merely displaying a connection.
- Reforma dokaznega prava v digitalni dobi
- Raznolikost izvršilnih naslovov pri čezmejni izterjavi dolgov v EU
- Train to Enforce
- Pravna sredstva v zvezi z izvrševanjem tujih sodnih odločb po Bruselj Ia (prenovitev)
- LAWTrain
- Razvoj in trendi v pravni ureditvi odvetništva v Sloveniji in Nemčiji
- Kontinentalno pravo proti "Common law" - presoja "pravil" dokaznega prava (testiranje dopustnosti elektronskih dokazov v anglosaškem in kontinentalnem pravnem sistemu)
- Razsežnosti dokazovanja v evropskem civilnem postopku
- Poenostavljena izterjava denarnih obveznosti v EU
- Vloga Pravne fakultete
- Konference in ostale aktivnosti
- Rezultati projekta
- Council regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
- Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003
- Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001
- Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000
- Brussels Regulation
- Brussels Convention
- Protocol on the interpretation of the Brussels Convention
- Brussels Convention
- Article 1
- Article 2
- Article 3
- Article 5 no. 1
- Article 5 no. 2
- Article 5 no. 3
- Judgment of the Court; 30 November 1976; Handelskwekerij G. J. Bier BV v Mines de potasse d'Alsace SA; in Case 21-76
- Judgment of the Court; 27 September 1988; Athanasios Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schröder, Münchmeyer, Hengst and Co. and others; in Case 189/87
- Judgment of the Court; 8 March 1988; SPRL Arcado v SA Haviland; in Case 9/87
- Judgment of the Court; 11 January 1990; Dumez France SA and Tracoba SARL v Hessische Landesbank and others; in Case C-220/88
- Judgment of the Court; 26 March 1992; Mario Reichert, Hans-Heinz Reichert and Ingeborg Kockler v Dresdner Bank AG; in Case C-261/90
- Judgment of the Court; 7 March 1995; Fiona Shevill, Ixora Trading Inc., Chequepoint SARL and Chequepoint International Ltd v Presse Alliance SA; in Case C-68/93
- Judgment of the Court; 19 September 1995; Antonio Marinari v Lloyds Bank plc and Zubaidi Trading Company; in Case C-364/93
- Judgment of the Court; 27 October 1998; Réunion européenne SA and Others v Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV and the Master of the vessel Alblasgracht V002; in Case C-51/97
- Judgement of the Court; 17 September 2002; in Case C-334/00, Fonderie Officine Meccaniche Tacconi SpA and Heinrich Wagner Sinto Maschinenfabrik GmbH (HWS)
- Judgement of the Court; 1 October 2002; in Case C-167/00, Verein für Konsumenteninformation and Karl Heinz Henkel
- Judgement of the Court; 5 February 2004; in Case C-18/02, Danmarks Rederiforening, acting on behalf of DFDS Torline A/S, and LO Landsorganisationen i Sverige, acting on behalf of SEKO Sjöfolk Facket för Service och Kommunikation
- Judgement of the Court; 10 June 2004; in Case C-168/02; Rudolf Kronhofer and Marianne Maier, Christian Möller, Wirich Hofius, Zeki Karan
- Article 5 no. 5
- Article 6
- Article 7
- Article 12
- Article 13
- Article 16 no. 1
- Article 16 no. 4
- Article 16 no. 5
- Article 17
- Article 18
- Article 19
- Article 21
- Article 22
- Article 23
- Article 24
- Article 25
- Article 26
- Article 27 no. 1
- Article 27 no. 2
- Article 27 no. 3
- Article 30
- Article 31
- Article 33
- Article 36
- Article 37
- Article 38
- Article 39
- Article 40
- Article 46
- Article 47
- Article 50
- Article 52
- Article 54
- Article 55
- Article 56
- Article 57
- Brussels Regulation
- Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001
- Council regulation (EC) No 1348/2000
- Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003
- Council regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
- Evropski izvršilni naslov
- Medicina, pravo in družba
- CRP Vročanje