Translation of "Angerufenen gericht" in English

The method of calculating the period of limitation shall be determined by the law of the court.

Equally, it enables the court seised to treat individual cases in an appropriate manner.

By unifying the Member States’ rules on conflict of laws, the Rome Convention ensures that the same solution will be applied as to the substance irrespective of the court hearing the case and thus reduces the risk of forum-shopping in the European Union.

Moreover, the proposal introduces a harmonised conflict of law rule on the substantive validity of choice of court agreements, thus ensuring a similar outcome on this matter whatever the court seised.

Where the action in the court first seised is pending at first instance, any other court may also, on the application of one of the parties, decline jurisdiction if the court first seised has jurisdiction over the actions in question and its law permits the consolidation thereof.

The Regulation should provide that, where proceedings on the succession of a spouse are pending before the court of a Member State seised under Regulation (EU) No 650/2012, the courts of that State should have jurisdiction to rule on matters of matrimonial property regimes linked to that succession case.

For the pursuit of activities relating to the representation or defence of a client in legal proceedings, the host Member State could require lawyers practising under their home-country professional titles to work in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the judicial authority in question and who would, where necessary, be answerable to that authority.

Acts intended to have legal effect may be proved by any mode of proof recognised by the law of the forum or by any of the laws referred to in Article 16 under which that act is formally valid, provided that such mode of proof can be administered by the forum.

Acts intended to have legal effect may be proved by any mode of proof recognised by the law of the forum or by any of the laws referred to in Article 1618 under which that act is formally valid, provided that such mode of proof can be administered by the forum.

A contract or an act intended to have legal effect may be proved by any mode of proof recognized by the law of the forum or by any of the laws referred to in Article 10 under which that contract or act is formally valid, provided that such mode of proof can be administered by the forum.

The Oberlandesgericht wishes to know whether that rule also applies where the Brussels I Regulation itself attributes exclusive jurisdiction to the court second seised.

They will also have the right to represent and defend a client in legal proceedings, if necessary working in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the relevant judicial authority.

It also contains a special rule whereby the party who brought the relevant action before the court second seised may, if he so wishes, bring that action before the court which claims jurisdiction because it was seised earlier.

Admittedly, the Directive, albeit without providing details in regard to the resultant legal costs, states in Article 5 that Member States may require lawyers established in other Member States to work in conjunction with a lawyer practising before the judicial authority in question.

The appointment of a lawyer practising before the court seised is thus a mandatory requirement resulting from harmonisation measures and for that reason falls outwith the will of the parties, as is evident from Paragraph 28(3) of the EuRAG, which provides that, in the absence of any contrary agreement between the parties, no contractual relationship is created between the national lawyer and the client.

By the second part of the question submitted, the Oberlandesgericht München asks in substance whether Article 49 EC and the Directive must be construed as precluding a judicial rule of a Member State providing that the party which has been successful in a dispute in which it was represented by a lawyer established in another Member State cannot recover, from the unsuccessful party, in addition to the fees of that lawyer, the fees of a lawyer practising before the court seised of the dispute who, under the national legislation in question, was required to work in conjunction with the first lawyer.

The fact that the party which has been successful in a dispute and which has been represented by a lawyer established in another Member State cannot also obtain reimbursement, from the unsuccessful party, of the fees of the lawyer practising before the court seised and to whom the successful party has had recourse, on the ground that such costs are not regarded as being necessary, is liable to make the transfrontier provision by a lawyer of his services less attractive.

It cannot, however, be inferred from this mandatory requirement that the disadvantage resulting from the appointment of the lawyer practising before the court seised, that is to say, the additional associated costs, must be attributed, automatically and in every case, to the party which has had recourse to the lawyer established in another Member State, irrespective of whether that party has or has not been successful in the dispute.

On the contrary, the obligation to have recourse to the services of a lawyer practising before the court seised means that the resulting costs will be necessary for the purposes of appropriate legal representation.

The question whether, in the light of Arti­cle 17 of the Convention, an exclusive distributor could still bring an action in Belgium under the Belgian law contrary to a validly concluded jurisdiction agreement, could only be relevant for a Belgian court in which proceedings had been brought under that Law.