Judgment of the Court; 26 February 1992; Elisabeth Hacker v Euro-Relais GmbH; Germany; in Case C-280/90
Article 16(1) of the Brussels Convention is to be interpreted as not applying to a contract concluded in a Contracting State whereby a business organizing travel with its seat in that State undertakes to procure for a client domiciled in the same State the use for several weeks of holiday accommodation not owned by it in another Contracting State, and to book the travel arrangements.
- DIGI - GUARD
- Diversity of Enforcement Titles in cross-border Debt Collection in EU
- Train to Enforce
- Remedies concerning Enforcement of Foreign Judgements according to Brussels I Recast
- LAWtrain
- Developments and trend in the regulation of the attorney's profession with the emphasis on Slovenia and Germany
- Civil vs "Common Law" – the assessment of »rules« of evidence law (testing the admissibility of electronic evidence in common law and continental law systems)
- Dimensions of Evidence in European Civil Procedure
- Simplification of Debt Collection in the EU
- Role of Faculty of Law
- Conferences and other activities
- Project results
- Council regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
- Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003
- Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001
- Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000
- Brussels Regulation
- Brussels Convention
- Protocol on the interpretation of the Brussels Convention
- Brussels Convention
- Article 1
- Article 2
- Article 3
- Article 5 no. 1
- Article 5 no. 2
- Article 5 no. 3
- Article 5 no. 5
- Article 6
- Article 7
- Article 12
- Article 13
- Article 16 no. 1
- Judgment of the Court; 14 December 1977; Theodorus Engelbertus Sanders v Ronald van der Putte; Netherlands; in Case 73-77
- Judgment of the Court; 15 January 1985; Erich Rösler v Horst Rottwinkel; Germany; in Case 241/83
- Judgment of the Court; 6 July 1988; R. O. E. Scherrens v M. G. Maenhout and others; Netherlands, in Case 158/87
- Judgment of the Court; 10 January 1990; Mario P. A. Reichert and others v Dresdner Bank; France; in Case C-115/88
- Judgment of the Court; 26 February 1992; Elisabeth Hacker v Euro-Relais GmbH; Germany; in Case C-280/90
- Judgment of the Court; 17 May 1994; George Lawrence Webb v Lawrence Desmond Webb; United Kingdom; in Case C-294/92
- Judgment of the Court; 9 June 1994; Norbert Lieber v Willi S. Göbel and Siegrid Göbel; Germany; in Case C-292/93
- Judgement of the Court; 27 January 2000; in Case C-8/98; Dansommer A/S and Andreas Götz
- Order of the Court; 5 April 2001; in Case C-518/99; Richard Gaillard and Alaya Chekili
- Judgement of the Court; 13 October 2005; in Case C-73/04; Brigitte and Marcus Klein v Rhodos Management Ltd
- Judgement of the Court; 18 May 2006; in Case C 343/04; Land Oberösterreich v ČEZ a.s.
- Article 16 no. 4
- Article 16 no. 5
- Article 17
- Article 18
- Article 19
- Article 21
- Article 22
- Article 23
- Article 24
- Article 25
- Article 26
- Article 27 no. 1
- Article 27 no. 2
- Article 27 no. 3
- Article 30
- Article 31
- Article 33
- Article 36
- Article 37
- Article 38
- Article 39
- Article 40
- Article 46
- Article 47
- Article 50
- Article 52
- Article 54
- Article 55
- Article 56
- Article 57
- Brussels Regulation
- Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001
- Council regulation (EC) No 1348/2000
- Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003
- Council regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
- European Enforcement Order
- Medicine, Law and Society
- CRP Service