The Pitfall of Interpreting Rome II Regulation Consistently with Brussels I Regulation
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Year of publication | 2009 |
| Type | Article in Periodical |
| Magazine / Source | Jurisprudencija |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Field | Law sciences |
| Keywords | Non-contractual obligation; delict; tort; Brussels I; Rome II; unification; interaction; interpretation; qualification; unjust enrichment; European Court of Justice; Kalfelis; Mines de potasse dAlsace |
| Description | This article addresses several aspects of interaction between procedural and conflict rule regulation in private international law both of which are subject to unification process under the European Community law. They are interdependent of each other, and use the same or similar terms on many occasions. Problems with interpretation arise in application of these legal regulations. The European Court of Justice addresses them more or less successfully. As demonstrated in this article, the interpretation of procedural rules of regulation may contribute to the clarification of the conflict rules and vice versa. It can be even said that the mutual interaction of conflict rules and procedural rules through interpretation is both unavoidable and desirable. |
| Related projects: |