Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters
Lugano Convention

Poland became a contracting state when it signed the Lugano Convention in 2000.

Recognition is governed by the Lugano Convention of 2007.

The Lugano Convention of 16 September 1988 is similarly structured but, as you know, there are differences of detail.

For similar relations with Norway, Iceland and Switzerland, the Lugano convention is applied.

In addition, the Lugano Convention (1988) binds the European Union and the European Free Trade Association.

I would like to remind you all that we have already made significant progress in certain areas (for example, the amendments to the Treaty of Brussels and the Lugano Convention).

Many of the points are already regulated by the Brussels and Lugano Conventions respectively, as well as another convention on family law that is in the process of being drawn up.

The signatories to the Lugano Convention are, in addition to the EU Member States, the EFTA states of Switzerland, Norway and Iceland.

A key feature in relation to this development has been the Brussels and Lugano Conventions on civil jurisdiction and judgments relating to members of the European Economic Area (EEA).

The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1991 is an Act of Parliament made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in order to implement the Lugano Convention of 1988 into British law.

The arrest of the assets of foreign debtors also establishes a venue in Switzerland under Swiss private international law in which the debtor may be sued by the creditor, except if the Lugano Convention is applicable.

More generally, what is the point of recognising the European Commission’s competence in this area when penalising environmental crime depends upon judicial cooperation and when other legal instruments such as the Council of Europe’s Lugano Convention could be used?

In it intended that the Brussels Convention will be replaced by the new Lugano Convention, the latter being open to ratification by EU member states acting on behalf of non-European territories which belong to that member state.

The Regime applies only in the courts where the Lugano convention is applicable, so there is nothing to prevent a non-party state from allowing parallel proceedings in their courts, although this may contribute to a finding of forum non conveniens, which would in practice halt an action.

More generally, what is the point of transferring the liability arrangements to Community level, when the Danish initiative for a Council framework decision on the combating of serious environmental crime falls within the scope of legal cooperation, particularly when there are other legal instruments that could be used, such as the Lugano Convention?

The Lugano Convention does not require non-EU states to refer questions of interpretation to the ECJ, but has a protocol regarding "uniform interpretation" of the convention, requiring courts "pay due account to the principles laid down by any relevant decision" and allowing for the exchange of relevant judgements.