Judgement of the Court;13 July 2006; in Case C-539/03, Roche Nederland BV and Others v Frederick Primus, Milton Goldenberg
Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended most recently by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply in European patent infringement proceedings involving a number of companies established in various Contracting States in respect of acts committed in one or more of those States even where those companies, which belong to the same group, may have acted in an identical or similar manner in accordance with a common policy elaborated by one of them.
- DIGI - GUARD
- Diversity of Enforcement Titles in cross-border Debt Collection in EU
- Train to Enforce
- Remedies concerning Enforcement of Foreign Judgements according to Brussels I Recast
- LAWtrain
- Developments and trend in the regulation of the attorney's profession with the emphasis on Slovenia and Germany
- Civil vs "Common Law" – the assessment of »rules« of evidence law (testing the admissibility of electronic evidence in common law and continental law systems)
- Dimensions of Evidence in European Civil Procedure
- Simplification of Debt Collection in the EU
- Role of Faculty of Law
- Conferences and other activities
- Project results
- 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
- Article 5 no. 5
- Article 6
- 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; 15 May 1990; Kongress Agentur Hagen GmbH v Zeehaghe BV; in Case C-365/88
- Judgment of the Court; 13 July 1995; Danværn Production A/S v Schuhfabriken Otterbeck GmbH & Co; in Case C-341/93
- 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; 26 May 2005; in Case C-77/04, Groupement d’intérêt économique (GIE) Réunion européenne and Others, v Zurich España, Société pyrénéenne de transit d’automobiles (Soptrans)
- Judgement of the Court;13 July 2006; in Case C-539/03, Roche Nederland BV and Others v Frederick Primus, Milton Goldenberg
- 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
- European Enforcement Order
- Medicine, Law and Society
- CRP Service