Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2007:451
Date: 2007-07-18
Language of the case: Italian
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

summary of Council acts, Document No 10571/01, p. 16 of 4 July 2001. 31 – See Case C-292/89 Antonissen [1991] ECR I-745, paragraph 18; Case C‑368/96 Generics(UK) and Others [1998] ECR I-7967, paragraphs 26 and 27; and Case C‑402/03 Skov and Bilka [2006] ECR I‑199, paragraph 42. 32 – See the sixth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1206/2001. 33 – Berger, C., ‘Die EG-Verordnung über die Zusammenarbeit der Gerichte auf dem Gebiet der Beweisaufnahme in Zivil- und Handelssachen (EuBVO)’, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts – IPRax 2001, p. 522. 34 – OJ 2000 C 314, p. 1. 35 – The English translation of the German initiative – on which the Government of the United Kingdom relies – appears to be incorrect on this point, as the German passage ‘Maßnahmen der Sicherung oder Vollstreckung’ is reproduced as ‘measures for the preservation of evidence or enforcement’. On the contrary, the French version, like the German original version, is aligned directly with the wording of the Hague Evidence Convention and speaks of ‘mesures conservatoires ou d’exécution’. Following the same approach the English version should have read ‘orders for provisional or protective measures’. 36 – OJ 2000 L 160, p. 37. 37 – See the seventh and eight recitals in the preamble to the initiative. 38 – Case C-104/03 St. Paul Dairy Industries [2005] ECR I-3481, paragraph 25. See also Geimer, R., and Schütze, R.A., Europäisches Zivilverfahrensrecht, 2nd edition, Munich, 2004, section A 1 – Article 2 of Regulation No 44/2001, point 92, and Article 31 of Regulation No 44/2001, point 32. 39 – St. Paul Dairy Industries, cited in footnote 38, paragraph 13. 40 – In the same vein, see CFEM Facades SA v Bovis Construction Ltd [1992] I.L. Pr. 561 QBD and Schlosser, P., EU-Zivilprozessrecht, 2nd edition, Munich, 2003, Article 32 of Regulation No 44/2001, point 7 and Article 1 of the Hague Evidence Convention, point 4. 41 – St. Paul Dairy Industries, cited in footnote 38, paragraph 23. 42 – One can certainly discuss whether the applicant ought not to have the option of both possibilities, the taking of evidence by means of judicial cooperation or the taking of evidence by a court in the place in which the evidence is situated. The second route might possibly be more swift, but is subject to the risk that the evidence gathered abroad is not recognised by the court with jurisdiction as to the substance of the case. (For views critical of the Court’s approach, see, for example: Mankowski, P., ‘Selbständige Beweisverfahren und einstweiliger Rechtsschutz in Europa’, Juristenzeitung 2005, p. 1144 and Hess B., and Zhou, C., ‘Beweissicherung und Beweisbeschaffung im europäischen Justizraum’, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts –IPRax 2007, p. 183). Irrespective of whether and, if so, under what circumstances, application of the Brussels Convention or Regulation No 44/2001 to independent procedures for obtaining evidence is desirable, the authors cited do not question the fact that in all cases those procedures are governed by Regulation No 1206/2001. 43 – Case C-385/05 CGT [2007] ECR I-611, paragraph 35, which refers to Case C‑151/02 Jaeger [2003] ECR I-8389, paragraph 59. 44 – That view is supported by the fact that the requested court returned the request without making use of form E or H. 45 – It appears that, in practice, the courts’ use of this instrument is somewhat sparing. It is seemingly more usual to require disclosure by the parties themselves of the documents and items in their possession. Only where the disclosure procedure is deemed inadequate for the preservation of evidence does the issuance of a search order fall to be considered (see Zuckerman, Zuckerman on Civil Procedure, 2nd edition, London, 2006, point 14.177). 46 – Practice Direction 25 – Interim injunctions, paragraph 7.2. 47 – Practice Direction 25 – Interim injunctions, paragraph 7.6. 48 – See Rauscher, T., and v. Hein, J., Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht, 2nd edition, Munich, 2006, Article 10 of Regulation No 1206/2001, point 13. 49 – Where witnesses are examined pursuant to a request for judicial assistance under Regulation No 1206/2001, Practice Direction 34 – Depositions and Court Attendance by Witnesses, paragraph 11.3, for example, provides expressly for the Treasury Solicitor to assume the applicant’s role before the requested court. On that point see also Layton and Mercer, European Civil Practice, 2nd edition, London, 2004, point 7.062. 50 – See Rauscher T., and v. Hein, J., cited in footnote 48, Article 10 of Regulation No 1206/2001, point 22 et seq. 51 – See Huber, S., in: Gebauer, M., and Wiedmann, T., Zivilrecht unter Europäischem Einfluss, Stuttgart, 2005, Chapter 29, point 133.