Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered on 15 June 1988

1 Translated from the French.

2 See in particular P. Jenard's Report, OJ C 59, 5.3.1979, p. 26; Droz: Compétence judiciaire et effets des jugements dans le marché comun, p. 71, No 88; Kropholler: Europäisches Zivilprozeßrecht, p. 76, Article 6, No 5.

3 See, for example, Corte di Cassazione, 6 November 1975, Dir. com. Scambi int., 1976, p. 383; Cour d'appel de Paris, 28 June 1978, R. c. d. i. p., p. 444, note by Santa Croce.

4 Gothot and Holleaux: La convention de Bruxelles du 27 septembre 1968, compétence judiciaire et effets des jugements dans la CEE, p. 62, No 111.

5 Droz, op. cit., No 88, p. 71; Desantes Real: La competencia judicial en la Comunidad europea, 1986, p. 330.

6 Case 34/82 Peters v ZNAV [1983] ECR 987. See more generally the decisions of this Court cited below in Footnote 20.

7 Comparable with the Italian concepts of litisconsorzio facoltativo and litisconsorzio necessario and the French concepts of connexité and indivisibilité — see below, footnote 12.

8 Einfache Streitgenossenschaft.

9 Notwendige Streitgenossenschaft.

10 Jenard Report, supra.

11 Gothol and Holleaux, op. cit., p. 62, No 111.

12 Cour d'appel, Paris, 28 June 1978, supra, footnote 2.

13 There is no doubt that this concept of litisconsorzio necessario (note 6 supra; see Carpi, Golessanti, Taruffo: Commentario breve at codice di procedura civile, 1984, p. 102, No. 102) must be associated with the indivisibilité or connexité renforcée of French law (see Solus and Perrot: Droit judiciaire privé, 1973, Vol. II, La Compétence, p. 604, No 552 et seq).

14 Ratio della norma è quella di favorire soluzioni armoniche, ... evitando il pericolo di giudicati anche solo logicamente contraddittori e rispondendo ad esigenze di economia processuale — Carpi, Colessanti, Taruffo, op. cit., p. 103, No 103.

15 Ibid.

16 See in particular, with regard to connexité, Solus and Perrot, who consider that the parallel method must be deliberately abandoned. An examination of the case-law shows that although, where those three elements (party, cause, subject-matter) are not all identical, a situation which is necessarily ruled out by the fact that the two cases are different, there may exist between connected cases either identity of subject-matter, or identity of cause or even identity of parties, such identity does not appear to be a necessary and sufficient precondition for connexity, op. cit., p. 588, No 541, and p. 569.

17 See Kropholler: Europäisches Zivilprozeßrecht, 1982, p. 76, note 5. See also Lasok and Stone: No attempt is made by Article 6 (1) to define the degree of connection between the claims against various defendants which will suffice to make it applicable, but assistance may be derived from the definition of related actions given in Article 22 (3) ... , Conflict of laws in the European Community, 1987, p. 253. See also Born and Fallon: Journal des tribuneaux, 1983, No 66.

18 Solus and Perrot, op. cit., p. 555, No 608.

19 Although I consider that it is appropriate to adopt a similar concept of irreconcilability for both Article 6 (1) and the third paragraph of Article 22, I consider on the other hand that the irreconcilability referred to in Article 27 (3) must be understood in a more restrictive sense. The concern in the first case is to preclude difficulties whereas in the second it is, by way of exception to the principles and objectives of the Convention, to refuse recognition or an order for enforcement. See judgment of 4 February 1988 in Case 145/86 Hoffmann [1986] ECR 645.

20 Case 814/79 Netherlands v Rüffer [1980] ECR 3807.

21 Case 12/76 [1976] ECR 1473.

22 Cases 14/76 De Bloos v Bayer [1976] ECR 1497; 29/76 LUT Eurocontrol [1976] ECR 1541; 21/76 Bier v Mines de potasse d'Alsace [1976] ECR 1735; 33/78 Somaferv Saar-Femgas [1978] ECR 2183; 43/77 Industrial Diamond Supplies v Riva [1977] ECR 2175; 150/77 Bertrand v Ott [1978] ECR 1431; 133/78 Courdain v Nodler [1979] ECR 733; 814/79 Ruffer [1980] ECR 3807; 34/82 Peters v ZNAV[1983] ECR 987; and 9/87 Arcado [1988] ECR 1539 (judgment of 8 March 1988).

23 It is no less probable that the Court will be unable, in a single judgment, to arrive at a comprehensive definition of matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict as used in Article 5 (3). Even if it is conceded that such a definition is possible — which is doubtful — it would be liable to create fresh difficulties by its excessively abstract nature The Community meaning will therefore in all probability be developed progressively, by subtle analysis and at the price of a period of inevitable uncertainty — Gothot and Holleaux in La convention de Bruxelles du 27 septembre 1968, Ed. Jupiter, 1985, pp. 47 and 48, No 86 (emphasis added). Similarly, see Desantes Real, op. cit., p. 315, Bischof, Clunet, 1982, pp. 470 and 471.

24 Case 34/82, supra.

25 Paragraph 17, emphasis added.

26 In that connection, the rule that the secondary issue should follow the first is expressly mentioned in the Court's judgment of 15 January 1987 in Case 266/85 Shenavai [1987] ECR 239, paragraph 19.

27 Paragraph 12, emphasis added.

28 See Kropholler, op. cit., p. 64, Art. 5, No 32, who considers that it is the contractual relationship and not the delictual relationship which is decisive.

29 See Peters, supra, paragraph 14.

30 But the special provisions of Article 1 of the Protocol concerning persons domiciled in Luxembourg should be noted.

31 See footnote 26, supra.