Temporal Scope of Application. The temporal scope of application of the SPS Agree- ment also deserves attention here. In EC— Hormones the EC argued that, as its measure 66 Report of the WTO Panel, EC—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Complaint by the United States, supra note 53, ¶ 4.4; and Report of the WTO Panel, EC—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Complaint by Canada, supra note 53, ¶ 4.3. 67 The Panel based its finding on the following grounds: (1) under the plain language of Article1.1 which governs the applicability of the SPS Agreement, the only requirements are that the relevant measure be an SPS measure as defined in Annex A and that it affect international trade. No prior violation of GATT is required. (2) The SPS Agreement does not only elaborate on GATT provisions but establishes its own substantive obligations in order to further, inter alia, the harmonization of SPS measures. (3) Under Article
Temporal Scope of Application. This Treaty shall apply to any requests presented after its entry into force even if the offences occurred before that date.
Temporal Scope of Application. The Brussels Ibis Regulation is applied to legal proceedings instituted, with authentic instruments formally drawn up or registered, and to court settlements approved or concluded on or after 10 January 2015.308 The Brussels I Regulation is applied to legal proceedings instituted, with authentic instruments formally drawn up or registered and to court settlements approved or concluded on or after 1 March 2002 in fourteen Member States,309 on or after 1 May 2004 in ten Member States,310 on or after 1 January 2007 in two Member States311, on or after 1 July 2007 in Denmark and on or after 1 July 2013 in Croatia. It is not required that the choice-of-court agreement was concluded on or after those dates. It is sufficient that the Member State court is seized with the dispute concerning Article 25 of 306 Article 4 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation and Article 2 of the Brussels I Regulation. 307 On the situation when the parties choose a court outside the EU, see infra Chapter Two, Subchapter I, Section 15. 308 Article 66 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. 309 Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Ireland, United Kingdom, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Austria, Finland, and Sweden. 310 Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. 311 Bulgaria, and Romania. the Brussels Ibis Regulation (Article 23 of the Brussels Regulation) at the time the Brussels I(-bis) Regulation became applicable at that Member State.312 However, the ECJ in case 25/79, Sanicentral GmbH,313 in the context of the intertemporal question related to the application of the Brussels Convention, stated that Article 17 requires judicial proceedings instituted after the coming into force of the Brussels Convention and clauses conferring jurisdiction concluded prior to that date must be considered valid, even in cases in which they would have been regarded as void under the national law in force at the time when the contract was entered into.Thus, the effects of the jurisdiction clause are fixed to the time of commencement of proceedings. This interpretation must be stressed in the context of the choice-of-court agreements concluded according to the national rules (for example in case of Croatia, where the Brussels I Regulation is applicable as from 1 July 2013), which governs the choice-of-court agreements differently than the Brussels Ibis Regulation. Moreover, such an interpretation can have a positive impact on the situation whe...
