Introduction: This paper aims to compare the traditional English law and EC legislation on jurisdictional values, thereby aiming at understanding and explaining why the previous legal rules value flexibility and justice, while the latter value security and predictability against each other. It will analyze its historical or political background, their goals and grounds for becoming competent. It will highlight the areas of differences between these jurisdictional rules with the help of authorities as significant court goals and books that, in addition to explaining or simplifying the law, have also contributed to its development.
Definition: The word Jurisdiction may have several meanings, but if understood in the context of the court it generally means a court's ability or authority to decide which issues are the subject of a decision. The rules of jurisdiction play a central role in determining the Court's ability to address the problems in a given question.
Jurisdiction issues become complex about the participation of more than one court with jurisdiction. This really is an area that not only concerns the international trade or business (which can be put in an invidious position where they do not know the extent of their responsibilities) but also the sovereign states trying to trade with each other without having to destroy their friendly relationship .
The English law: The English legal system (with the common law at its core) has had and continues to have a formidable place for investigating the multiple issues law, mainly due to the availability of intellectuals and experts who have helped to do so.
Traditional English law (the common law) is basically the case laws that have over time become an authority with regard to the matter determined there. Before the European Union (EU) was signed in the 1978 Accession Document, in U.K., together with the statutory laws, legislation also played an important role, although it may have been more or less corrective. However, it seems logical to allow the referee to make legislation to test legislation whenever required by the change of circumstances that can be effected relatively simply compared to the legislative process.
Before the advent of the Brussels / Lugano system and the amended regulation, the traditional rules were applied in all cases, and it is their historical roots that make it appropriate to refer them to the traditional English law / rules.
The jurisdiction of the English courts is determined by different regimes:
Brussels I Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation) (an amended version of the Brussels Convention, although, despite the amendments, a similar regulatory system applies)
The amended regulation that assigns jurisdiction within U.K under certain circumstances and
The traditional English rules.
There are other sets of jurisdiction rules like the EC / Denmark Agreement on Jurisdiction and those included in the Lugano Convention. but their ambition is limited in cases where the defendant is domiciled in Denmark in respect of the former and in an EFTA State in the case of the latter. There is also the Brussels Convention that applies to Denmark alone.
EC legislation: In contrast to the traditional English law, the European Community seems to place greater emphasis on legislative work than the judge made laws. It is clear to the EC that it is more important that the basic structure of its legal system should be built into a codified structure that it defends with regard to simple understanding for other reasons. While English laws seem to place greater emphasis on having a common team or judge layered layers. This pattern begins to understand the differences between the different legal systems and their values, that is, a fundamental difference when it comes to approaching the problems even in cases where the goals can be the same.
EC legislation on jurisdiction is more prone to the importance of predictability and security in the rules than in matters of justice and flexibility that can be understood by reading the 11th recital in the regulation which states that jurisdiction rules must be highly predictable and founded. Based on the principle that jurisdiction in general must be based on respondents, domicile and jurisdiction shall always be available in this way, except in few defined situations.