1. LTU v. Eurocontrol Iveta Rohová, Lucie Svačinová Iva Šimková European Private International Law 7. 3. 2012

2. Parties  European Organization of the Safety of Air Navigation, hereinafter „Eurocontrol“  int. organization which coordinates and plans air traffic control for all of Europe, seat: Belgium  Lufttransportunternehmen GmbH & Co. Kg,hereinafter „LTU“  G erman company which provides air transport

3. Facts Sept. 1972, Belgium – Eurocontrol brought an action against LTU claiming charges for the use of Eurocontrol equipment and services -> the court decided in favor of Eurocontrol Aug. 1974, Germany – Eurocontrol tried to enforce this decision – during the proceedings preliminary question to the ECJ is raised

4. Preliminary question „Whether, for the purposes of interpreting the concept 'civil and commercial matters' within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 1 of the Convention, the law to be applied is the law of the State in which judgment was given or the law of the State in which proceedings for an order for enforcement were issued.“

5. Decision of the ECJ Reference must be made: – to the objectives and scheme of Convention – to the general principles LTU vs Eurocontrol do not fall within the ambit of the Convention

6. Key reasons of the decision autonomous interpretation – the purpose of relevant EC legislation – independence on the law of a certain State character of the parties of the dispute

7. Significance of the Decision key decision Autonomous (independent) interpretation of EPIL instruments interpretation of the concept “civil and commercial matters” In this particular case – the Brussels Convention, subsequently other instruments

8. Why autonomous interpretation? Let´s think about… Who adopts the law? – The Council (+ the EP) - qualified majority vote Who applies the law? – national authorities (courts) all around Europe (27) How? – In a different (their own) way (?) In order to achieve rights and duties deriving from EU measures are applied uniformly and equally across the EU

9. Way towards uniform and harmonious application of EU law That is why we have the ECJ (the CJ EU) ! – Preliminary ruling – Article 267 TFEU (Art.234 + Title IV TEC) – Competence to interpret the Convention - special Protocols – Article 19 of the Preamble + Article 68 of the Brussels I Regulation

10. Related Case Law Gourdain v. Nadler (133/78) Netherlands v. Rüffer (814/79) Sonntag v. Waidmann (C-172/91)

11. Autonomous interpretation as an „absolute rule“ ? Tessili v. Dunlop (12/76) Interpretation of the notion “ the place of performance of the obligation” (article 5/1 of the Convention, art. 5/1 a) of the Regulation )

12. Tips For Further Reading Articles of the Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, Reg. Brussels I) Case law Brussels I Regulation (44/2001): http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/caselaw/brusregone001.htm http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/caselaw/brusregone001.htm Ulrich Magnus,Peter Mankowski,Alfonso-Luis Calvo Caravaca. Brussels I Regulation. John O'Brien,Raymond Smith. Conflict of Laws.

13. Questions ? Thank you for your attention !

14. PROJECT „THEORY – SKILL – EXPERIENCE“ reg. No. CZ.1.07/2.2.00/15.0198, Operational Program Education for Competitiveness 14