English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Pro

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Presents AI Discovery search usage as a premium feature

AI Discovery

Presents AI Discovery explain and summary usage as a premium feature

Content Analysis

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

1500 Top-up

3000 Top-up

Zendy Basic

2500 Top-up

Zendy Unlimited

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

The decision of the European Court of Justice (‘ECJ’) in  Feniks sp z o o v Azteca Products &amp; Services SL  provides further insight into the demarcation of the head of jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract, which is contained in the Brussels I Regulation Recast, Article 7(1). In particular, the decision characterises an avoidance action, a so-called actio pauliana, as a contractual matter. As a consequence, disputes that are based on such an action can be brought in the court of the place of performance of the contractual obligation the avoidance action aims to protect. This contribution will explain that while the decision of the ECJ is seemingly in line with recent precedents, it cannot be reconciled with the principle of predictability of jurisdiction, because the decision is based on an overly broad interpretation of the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’. The ramification of the decision is that a third party that is somehow involved in the contractual dealings of others is at risk of being sued in the place of performance of a contract with which it has a too tenuous connection.

Once more unto the Breach: the Actio Pauliana is a Matter Relating to a Contract in EU Private International Law