Talk:Brussels I Regulation 2012
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled
[edit]Hi guys. Could someone change the title of this article to indicate somehow that these are the jurisdictional rules for the 2001 version of the Brussels Regulation, and not the more recent Recast version, which will enter into force next year? L E X commons (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Couldn't the content of the article be merged into Brussels Regime instead? Wondering if that wouldn't be better... --Edcolins (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I would say not, since this article, long as it may be, is really the shortest summary to comprehensively explain the jurisdiction rules. I really couldn't do it any shorter than these 3500 words. Besides, I think, even if you explain all the jurisdictional rules under Brussels I article, it should be the new jurisdictional rules, and not these from 2001, which will expire on january first 2015. Just my thoughts.L E X commons (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- For comparative and legal historical reasons I think it is useful nonetheless to have this page which contains the Brussels I Regulation rules as they were from 2002 to 2015. L E X commons (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think there is much reason to make a separate page on the recast and the older version… Why not update the page to show where the recast has taken effect, so it is comprehensively there? L.tak (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that make the original article way too long? L E X commons (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I mean to expand this article, not the Brussels regime article; and think that wouldn't be too long; as the number of substantial changes is rather small (or beyond the scope of this article; like the abolishment of the exequatur)… The work lies in transposing the numbers from the old to the recast version….L.tak (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, no problem. Would you be so kind and remind me of doing that somewhere in december? It would seem confusing now to edit the article into a version of the regulation that hasn't entered in force yet.L E X commons (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I think we can now already put the new paragraphs between brackets; and then move them around once it has entered in force (then putting the 2001 paragraphs between brackets); so we have both all the time, as they are both of relevance… I'll give it a try; feel free to revert or adapt if needed… L.tak (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, no problem. Would you be so kind and remind me of doing that somewhere in december? It would seem confusing now to edit the article into a version of the regulation that hasn't entered in force yet.L E X commons (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I mean to expand this article, not the Brussels regime article; and think that wouldn't be too long; as the number of substantial changes is rather small (or beyond the scope of this article; like the abolishment of the exequatur)… The work lies in transposing the numbers from the old to the recast version….L.tak (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that make the original article way too long? L E X commons (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think there is much reason to make a separate page on the recast and the older version… Why not update the page to show where the recast has taken effect, so it is comprehensively there? L.tak (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I like what you've done with it! Maybe a suggestion is that we could make a scheme or a visual representation of some sort depicting the hierarchy amongst the rules? Just thinking of ways to make the article look slightly less dull. L E X commons (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)