《布鲁塞尔公约》第五条第一款中有关合同"相应义务"的研究

为了欧共体各国法院的管辖权确定以及法院判决能够在其他成员国得到承认和执行,1968年9月27日,由欧共体6个成员国共同签订了《布鲁塞尔公约》。该公约的目的在于实现"法院判决的自由流通"。而在确定法院管辖权问题上,公约就管辖权事宜规定了三种情形,即普通管辖权、特殊管辖权以及专属管辖权。其中最具争议性的问题来自于公约第五条第一款特殊管辖权中的一个措词——"相应义务"("the obligation in question")。本文将结合欧盟法院(the European Court of Justice)以及上议院(the House of Lords)相关判例,着重分析布鲁塞尔公约第五条第一款中的"相应义务",同时阐述《布鲁塞尔第一规则》(Brussels 1 Regulation)第五条第一款中(b)和(c)项中有关新措词的意义。

Analysis on the Wording of "Obligation in Question" in Article 5 (1) of the Brussels Convention

Foe the purpose of "free movement of judgments" ,six member states of the EC signed the Brussels Convention on 27 September 1968 to determine the international jurisdiction of their courts and facilitate the recognition and enforcement of judgments. Under the Brussels Convention, there are three bases of jurisdiction---general jurisdiction (Article 2),special jurisdiction (Article 5) and exclusive jurisdiction (Article 17). One of the most arguable problems arising out of the three bases of jurisdiction is the concept of " obligation in question" in Article 5 (1) of special jurisdiction which concerns on the relationship of contract.This essay will focus on the concept of "obligation in question" in Article 5 (1) of the Brussels Convention through analyzing the case law of the European Court of Justice and the House of Lords and explain the significance of the new wording in Article 5 (1) (b) and (c) of the Brussels 1 Regulation.