Magnus et al. reveals that the Regulation should be interpreted in accordance with methods of Community law. According to Treaty on European Union, European Court of Justice has a jurisdiction on interpretation of acts issued by the institutions of Community. Magnus et al. mark the Court of Justice resorts to “the classical tools of verbal, historic, systematic and purposive interpretation. ” Verbal interpretation reveals the sense of wording as it would normally understood.
Historic interpretation attempts to find out the intention of legislator. Systematic interpretation links the meaning of the provision to surrounding system of rules and provisions. Finally, purposive interpretation reveals the purpose of the provision and then considers the provision within the context of that purpose. The impact of the Regulation is better to consider individually in every area of law.
Thus, Ringbom finds that within the context of maritime responsibility, Brussels I Regulation will detail provisions of maritime liability conventions (International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea and Bunkers Convention). Bird & Bird finds that the Regulation does not contribute “to legal certainty in the area of e-commerce. ” In addition, in its report Eurocomission revealed that provisions of the Regulation do not apply broadly: less than 1% of all civil cases.
Conclusion Overall, one may observe that Brussels I Regulation has adopted main principles set in Brussels Convention. In particular, the Regulation is concerned with civil and commercial matters, meaning that it operates only in the area of private law. The Regulation does not apply to certain matters, which are considered within the context of international conventions and specific acts of the Community. The Regulation establishes general and specific jurisdiction.
As for recognition issues, the document employs the principle of automatic legislation, while enforcement is declarable. Judgments of the European Court of Justice provide verbal, historical, systematic and purposive interpretation of the Regulation. In general, the document seems to provide effective legal mechanism for free movement of judgments, albeit some of its provisions lack clarity. In addition, the Regulation has a surprisingly low level of application, in quantitative terms. Reference list:
Bird &Bird, ‘Regulation on E- Belgium: Impact of the “Brussels I” commerce’, 11 November 2002, retrieved 10 July, 2010 < http://www. mondaq. com/article. asp? articleid=18703> Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters of 1968 Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters Group Josi Reinsurance Company SA v Universal General Insurance Company (UGIC)  I -5961