Case C-80/00, Italian Leather Spa V. Weco Polstermöbel GMBH & Co., European Court of Justice, 6 June 2002

13 Pages Posted: 25 May 2007 Last revised: 8 May 2008

See all articles by Xandra E. Kramer

Xandra E. Kramer

Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), Erasmus School of Law; Utrecht University School of Law

Abstract

This ruling further clarifies the position of provisional measures in European litigation. As was already shown by the Van Uden and Mietz rulings, sometimes the normal rules apply, and for other issues the nature of provisional and protective measures require a different approach. In this Italian Leather case the Court decides that as for the application of Article 27, paragraph 3 Brussels Convention (Article 34, paragraph 3 Regulation) there is no difference between two conflicting provisional measures and two conflicting judgments on the substance. Apart from the fact that the Court could have elaborated more on the issue of difference in procedural law with regard to the urgency requirement, this is in my opinion a desirable conclusion. It increases the value of these measures in international litigation, attributes to legal certainty and reduces the risk of forum shopping.

Keywords: Italian Leather, provisional and protective measures, enforcement, irreconcilability, Brussels Regulation

JEL Classification: K19

Suggested Citation

Kramer, Xandra E., Case C-80/00, Italian Leather Spa V. Weco Polstermöbel GMBH & Co., European Court of Justice, 6 June 2002. Common Market Law Review, Vol. 40, pp. 953-964, 2003. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=988525

Xandra E. Kramer (Contact Author)

Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), Erasmus School of Law ( email )

3000 DR Rotterdam
Netherlands

Utrecht University School of Law ( email )

Janskerkhof 3
Utrecht, 3512 BK
Netherlands

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
155
rank
180,860
Abstract Views
1,814
PlumX Metrics