The pitfall of interpreting Rome II regulation consistently with Brussels i regulation
| Author | Affiliation |
|---|---|
Valdhans, Jiří |
Mykolo Romerio universitetas |
| Date |
|---|
2009 |
Sudėtingesnės problemos kyla dėl niuansinių situacijų, kurios susijusios su sutartimi, tačiau kyla ne iš sutartinių teisinių santykių. Tokių klausimų ETT nebuvo linkęs spręsti remdamasis Briuselio I reglamentu, tačiau, esu tikras, kad ETT negalės laikytis to paties požiūrio ir aiškindamas Romos II reglamentą. Atitinkamai, Romos II reglamento aiškinimas turėtų padėti aiškinti Briuselio I reglamento 5 straipsnio 3 dalis bei 5 straipsnio 1 dalis.
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.