欧盟协议管辖制度实施之保障研究

Study on Guarantee for Application of Consensual Jurisdiction in EU

对于平行诉讼问题的解决,欧洲法院对先系属优先原则之僵化解释,减损了协议管辖制度的价值,促使"鱼雷诉讼"的产生,也有悖人权法的价值。为矫正欧洲法院过于强调法律确定性的做法,发挥协议管辖制度在解决欧盟平行诉讼问题上的作用,理论界和实务界提出了保障协议管辖制度的间接方法和直接方法。保障协议管辖制度之间接方法并不能妥善解决平行诉讼问题。《布鲁塞尔条例Ⅰ修订案》第31条第2款作为保障协议管辖制度之直接方法,能够相对有效地规制该问题的产生。在直接方法的实施中,应明确管辖协议的范围及存在的证明标准,协议管辖权与应诉管辖权的关系,以及协议管辖权与先系属优先原则的关系。对欧盟相关理论与实践的研究,有助于更为深入地理解国际私法中的协议管辖制度。

The rigid interpretation of the principle of lis alibi pendens by ECJ in solving parallel litigation has impaired the value of consensual jurisdiction and promoted ＂torpedo actions＂,as well as violating the law of human right. In order to correct the practice of putting too much emphasis on legal certainty,and to exert the function of consensual jurisdiction in dealing with parallel litigation,indirect and direct approaches which guarantee the application of consensual jurisdiction have been put forward. The indirect approach cannot properly avoid parallel litigation. As an exception to the principle of lis alibi pendens,Article 31（ 2） of BrusselsⅠ Regulation Recast is regarded as direct approach to solve the problem of parallel litigation,which can effectively regulate the problems mentioned above. The scope and standard of proof,the existence of jurisdiction agreement,and the relationship between consensual jurisdiction and jurisdiction by present,as well as the relationship between consensual jurisdiction and principle of lis alibi pendens should be cleared in the application of the direct approach. Relevant theory and practice of the EU contribute to a deeper understanding of consensual jurisdiction in private international law.