The aim of this thesis is to analyze the proper law under the Rome I Regulation and the Rome II Regulation and find out the differences and similarities between them. The thesis is composed of introduction, four parts and conclusion. The part One describes general and theoretical topics of European Private International Law (EPIL) - explains the notion and methods of regulation of Private International Law, notion, meaning, and sources of law and principles of application of EPIL. The part Two is concerned with the history of creation, structure, and scope of the Rome I and Rome II Regulations. Parts Three and Four represent the core of this thesis. The part Three analyzes the proper law of contract under the Rome I Regulation and non- contractual obligations under the Rome II Regulation. It focuses on ascertaining of the applicable law for obligations, on limits of the proper law and other related questions. Part Four summarizes all knowledge. It illustrates the results of comparison of the Rome I and Rome II Regulations.

1 ABSTRACT European international law - selected issues The subject of this thesis is an analysis of a new procedural measure of European law - European order for payment (hereinafter as "EOP") and exploration of its application in practice from the perspective of the Czech plaintiff and Czech court. I have chosen this topic because of my own experience concerning cross-border debt recovery through the EOP. In this context, I decided to find out how this legal measure works in practice with regard to its purpose of providing a simplified, accelerated and cost effective procedure for the recovery of uncontested pecuniary civil and commercial claims in cross-border cases. In the final part of the thesis, I made the conclusion that the Council Regulation 1896/2006 of 12 December 2006, in creating a European order for payment procedure, (hereinafter as "REOP") meets its objectives and its implementation is a valuable asset to the creditors against non paying debtors. The thesis is divided into 3 parts. The first part is as an introduction to European private international law containing five chapters. The first and second chapters explain the concepts of private international law and European private international law. The third chapter deals with their mutual relationship. The fourth chapter describes the...

The theme of my diploma thesis is one of the most important judicial acts of European private international law of civil procedure - Brussels I Regulation. The aim of my thesis was to analyse the Regulation from many views with an emphasis on the jurisprudence of European Court of Justice and of domestic national courts. First part of the thesis aims to describe the whole legal branch of european private international law of civil procedure and therefore place the Regulation in the context of the whole legal branch. second part of the thesis deals with the Regulation in its entirety and desribes every single article of the Regulation and tries to determine the boundaries of its application and interpretation. The last, third part, states othre relevant legal acts related to Regulation which are considered to be its alternative, and sums up the pros and cons of their application.

This dissertation deals with one of the most significant concepts of contemporary private international law - the concept of habitual residence. The concept of habitual residence was introduced into the field of private international law within the context of the unification work of the Hague Conference of Private International Law in the interest of finding a compromise between the traditional connecting factors of domicile, dominant in the sphere of common law, and nationality, that is historically closely bound to continental legal systems. Thanks to the long and systematic unification work of the Hague Conference of Private International Law, the connecting factor of habitual residence has gained a permanent indisputable position in private international law. The concept of habitual residence has also forcefully made its way through into the rapidly developing sphere of European private international law. The European Union has followed in the footsteps of the Hague Conference of Private International Law: habitual residence is today the central, most frequently adopted connecting factor in the unified conflict-of-laws rules, that determine the applicable law, as well as in the rules that determine the jurisdiction of the forum. Building on the recent intense development in this field of...

The European international private law has undergone a dynamic development during the last twenty years. It can be assumed that this development will continue con-sidering the increasing need for dealing with the legal relations involving a cross-border element, which arise thanks to the exercise of the freedom of movement of goods, capital, services, and people in the frame of the European Union. The experts in international private law discuss the directions of its future development. Should it continue the same or similar direction as until now, i.e. the unification of individual in-struments and conclusion of international agreements (limited with the EU competen-ces), or should it take the direction of a comprehensive codification of the European conflict of laws? The last considered direction is the adoption of a comprehensive common code on private law, i.e. a code of the private substantive law rules. Neverthe-less, this possibility deals with the diversity of the law cultures and the law orders among the EU member states.

The EU jurisdictional scheme, known as the “Brussels Regime”, confers competence to national courts to adjudicate over international matters. The main rule in Article 4(1) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation sets out that the defendant should generally be sued in the courts of the Member State where he is domiciled. For certain subject matters, the scheme allows the action to be brought elsewhere. The raison d’être is to provide an adequate counterbalance to the one-sided rule of Article 4(1). Articles 7(1) and (2) enable the claimant to launch the suit, “in matters relating to a contract”, at the court of the Member State where the contractual obligation was to be fulfilled, and, in “matters relating to tort”, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred. Whether to invoke Article 7 is entirely the claimant’s choice, but the final decision on its interpretation is vested in the Court. Thereby, the manner in which the Court views the provisions will effectively decide the extent of the claimant’s choice to invoke so-called special jurisdiction. It also means that greater emphasis on special jurisdiction will reduce the importance of the main rule in Article 4. Conversely, if the Court were to interpret Article 7 narrowly, its intended effect within the system would be denied. In both cases, the balance between Articles 4 and 7 has been upset. In the former case, the claimant is favoured because of the increased possibilities to choose the forum for the dispute, while in the latter case, the defendant is favoured because he retains the advantage of litigating in his home turf. The starting point for this essay is this very idea of a purported balance between litigants’ interests in EU cross-border litigation. The thesis analyses whether the Court’s case-law on general vis-à-vis special jurisdiction has transitioned from being generally defendant-friendly to claimant-friendly. It is argued that already from the first judgments rendered on the original Brussels Convention in 1976, increasingly more disputes have been launched at special fora, which has amounted to a claimant-friendly scheme. It is also argued that this development has been at the expense of the defendant. Greater choice for the claimant means in turn that the defendant’s ability to foresee before what courts he may be sued has been largely impaired. The thesis highlights how this imbalance is the result of inherent challenges in the Brussels Regime, particularly in relation to how the relevant connecting factors are designated. It is proposed that the unwanted effects of the Court’s practice as well as the shortcomings of the scheme itself are to be considered in the Commission’s evaluationof the Brussels Ibis Regulation, which is presently in the works.