This ruling further clarifies the position of provisional measures in Euro-pean litigation. As was already shown by the Van Uden and Mietz rulings, sometimes the normal rules apply, and for other issues the nature of provisional and protective measures require a different approach. In this Italian Leather case the Court decides that as for the application of Article 27, paragraph 3 Brussels Convention (Article 34, paragraph 3 Regulation) there is no difference between two conflicting provisional measures and two conflicting judgments on the substance. Apart from the fact that the Court could have elaborated more on the issue of difference in procedural law with regard to the urgency requirement, this is in my opinion a desirable conclusion. It increases the value of these measures in international litigation, attributes to legal certainty and reduces the risk of forum shopping.

Common Market Law Review
Private Law

Kramer, X. (2003). Annotation Case C-80/00, Italian Leather SpA v. WECO Polstermöbel GmbH & Co., European Court of Justice, 6 June 2002. Common Market Law Review. Retrieved from