Comparison Between Rome I and Regulation Rome I

INTRODUCTION:

The fact that the European Union is a supranational organization whereby all the Member States within its territory can freely trade and conclude contracts amongst each other, means that there is an increased risk that European citizens or companies established in a Member State may be involved in a dispute of which all the elements are not confined to the State where they have their habitual residence. An example would be where a Spanish company wants to sue its English trading partner for failure to perform its contract.

In the European Union there cannot be a genuine internal market, envisaging free movement of goods, persons, services and capital, without a common law enforcement area in which all citizens can assert their rights not only in their home country but also in other Member States. Therefore, it is important for there to be a system present for the mutual recognition of court orders and judgments. The harmonization of the rules of private international law is essential for attaining this objective, hence, the birth of the Rome Convention and its follow-up, Rome I Regulation.

In order to fully understand the objectives of the Rome Convention, it is important to look at its predecessor, the Brussels Convention of 1968. The reason for the establishment of the Brussels Convention was the notion that a common market implies the possibility of having a judgment handed down in another Member State recognized and enforced with the least amount of difficulty. In order to facilitate this, the Brussels Convention begins with rules that determine which Member States' courts will have jurisdiction. However, these rules on jurisdiction was not enough to prevent arbitrary factors in settling the dispute with regard to the substantive issues. Therefore, the Brussels Convention and the Regulation which replaces it contains a number of options that enable the claimant to choose between the various available courts. The problem of having these number of options was that parties to a dispute will opt for the