主要参考文献
一、著作
1.［英］弗朗西斯·斯奈德：《欧洲联盟法概论》，宋英编译，北京大学出版社1996年版。
2.邵景春：《欧洲联盟的法律制度》，人民法院出版社1999年版。
3.刘荣军著：《程序保障的理论视角》，法律出版社1999年版
4.肖永平主编：《欧盟统一国际私法研究》，武汉大学出版社2002年版。
5.罗剑雯：《欧盟民商事管辖权比较研究》，法律出版社2003年版。
6.许耀明：《欧盟法、WTO法与科技法》，元照出版公司2009年版。
7.［日］石川明=石渡哲編「EUの国際民事訴訟法判例」，信山社，2005。
8.Peter Kaye，Civil Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments，Abingdon，1987.
9.Justin Newton，The Uniform Interpretation of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions，Hart Publishing，2002.
10.Jannet A.Pontier ＆ Edwige Burg，EU Principles on Jurisdiction and Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters：according to the Case Law of the European Court of Justice，T.M.C.Asser Press，2004.
11.Peter Stone，EU Private International Law：Harmonization of Laws，Edward Elgar Publishing Limited，2006.
12.Pascal de Vareilles-Sommières（ed.），Forum Shopping in the European Judicial Area，Hart Publishing，2007.
13.P.Jenard，Report on the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters，OJ 1979 C 59/1，5 march 1979.
14.P.Schlosser，Report on the Association of the Kingdom of Denmark，Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and to the Protocol on its Interpretation by the Court of Justice，OJ C59/71，9 October 1978.
15.Evrigenis and Kerameus Report on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic to the Community Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters（OJ 1986 C 298）.
二、论文
1.王千华：《论欧洲法院的法解释方法——一个一体化和非一体化的视角》，载《中外法学》1998年第5期；
2.罗文波、魏虹：《欧洲法院及其对欧共体法律的解释》，载《山东大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2000年第5期；
3.张英：《欧洲法院司法解释的方法论》，载《欧洲》2001年第5期；
4.郭玉军、向在胜：《欧盟〈民商事管辖权及判决承认与执行条例〉介评》，载《法学评论》2002年第2期；
5.黄进、邹国勇：《欧盟民商事管辖权规则的嬗变——从〈布鲁塞尔公约〉到〈布鲁塞尔条例〉》，载《东岳论丛》2006年第5期
6.方国学：《论欧洲法院的司法解释》，载《安徽师范大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2007年第1期
7.韩燕煦：《条约解释的特点——同国内法解释的比较研究》，载《环球法律评论》2008年第1期
8.向在胜、文婕：《论侵权法律适用中法院地法对外国法的限制——兼论我国涉外侵权法律适用法的未来立法选择》，载《武大国际法评论》（第十二卷），2010年
9.［日］高橋宏司，ブラツセルズ条約·规则とイングランド流解釈—制度的一貫性と個別事件における妥当性の緊張関係—，同志社法学，五八巻二号。
10.Claus Gulmann，Methods of Interpretation of the European Court of Justice，24 Scandinavian Stud.L.187（1980）.
11.Max Sørensen，Autonomous Legal Orders：Some Considerations Relating to a Systems Analysis of International Organisations in the World Legal Order，32 ICLQ559（1983）.
12.Trevor C.Hartley，Comity and the Use of Antisuit Injunctions in International Litigation，35 Am.J.Comp.L.487（1987）.
13.Bastiaan van der Esch，The Principles of Interpretation Applied by the Court of Justice of the European Communities and their Relevance for the Scope of the EEC Competition Rules，15 Fordham Int'l L.J.366（1991-1992）.
14.Nial Fennelly，Legal Interpretation at the European Court of Justice，20 Fordham Int'l L.J.656（1996-1997）.
15.Patrick Wautelet，Case C-106/95.Mainschiffahrts-Genossenschaft eG（MSG）v Les Gravieres Rhenanes SARL，3 Colum.J.Eur.L.465（1997/98）.
16.H.Boularbah，Les Mesures Provisoires en Droit Commercial International：Développements Récents au Regard des Conventions de Bruxelles et de Lugano，Revue de Droit Commercial Belge，1999.
17.Aurelio Lopez-Tarruella，The Public Policy Clause in the System of Recognition and Enforcement of the Brussels Convention，The European Legal Forum（E）2-2000/01.
18.Thomas Simons，Cross-border"Torpedo"Actions：The Lis Pendens Rule in European Cross-national Litigation，The European Legal Forum（E）5/6-2003.
19.Claire Ambrose，Can Anti-suit Injunctions Survive European Community Law？52 ICLQ401（2003）.
20.Xandra E.Kramer，Harmonisation of Provisional and Protective Measures in Europe，in M.Storme（ed.），Procedural Laws in Europe.Towards Harmonisation，Maklu：Antwerpen/Apeldoorn，2003.
21.Xandra E.Kramer，Case C-80/00，Italian Leather SpA v WECO Polstermöbel GmbH ＆ Co.，European Court of Justice，6 June 2002，40 Common Market Law Review 953（2003）.
22.Ian McLeod，Literal and Purposive Techniques of Legislative Interpretation：Some European Community and English Common Law Perspectives，29 Brook.J.Int'l L.1109（2003-2004）.
23.Thalia Kruger，The Anti-Suit Injunction in the European Judicial Space：Turner v Grovit，53 ICLQ1030（2004）.
24.Anthony Clarke，The Differing Approach to Commercial Litigation in the European Court of Justice and the Courts of England ＆ Wales I，Amicus Curiae，2006，Issue 65.
25.Peter Schlosser，Anti-suit Injunctions zur Unterstützung von Internationalen Scheidsverfahren，52 Recht der International Wirtschaft 486（2006）.
26.Miguel Poiares Maduro，Interpreting European Law：Judicial Adjudication in a Context of Constitutional Pluralism，lEuropean Journal of Legal Studiesl（2007）.
27.Marta Requejo，West Tankers：the Advocate General's Opinion，The European Legal Forum（E）5/6-2008.
28.Martin Illmer，Anti-suit injunctions zur Durchsetzung von Schiedsvereinbarungen in Europa-der letzte Vorhang ist gefallen，IPRax 2009，Heft 4.
29.Giulio Itzcovich，The Interpretation of Community Law by the European Court of Justice，10 German L.J.537（2009）.
30.Jacob Grierson，Comment on West Tankers Inc.v RAS Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta S.p.A.（The Front Comor），26 Journal of International Arbitration 891（2009）.
31.Patrizio Santomauro，Sense and Sensibility：Reviewing West Tankers and Dealing with its Implications in the Wake of the Reform of EC Regulation 44/2001，6 Journal of Private International Law 281（2010）.
32.Giovanni Distefano，L'Interprétation Évolutive de la Norme Internationale，Revue Générale du Droit International Public，2011，N.2.
33.Xandra E.Kramer，Cross-border Enforcement in the EU：Mutual Trust versus Fair Trial？Towards Principles of European Civil Procedure，International Journal of Procedural Law 2011（2）.
34.Niels Baeten，Judging the European Court of Justice：the Jurisprudence of Aharon Barak through a European Lens，18 Colum.J.Eur.L.135（2011-2012）.
35.Hannes Rösler，Interpretation of EU Law，in Jürgen Basedow，Klaus J.Hopt＆ Reinhard Zimmermann（eds.），Max Planck Encyclopaedia of European Private Law，Vol.Ⅱ，Oxford University Press，2012.
36.Grégory Minne，Arrêt BVG：la Cour de Justice de l'Union Européenne Précise la Portée de l'article 22 point 2 du Règlement Bruxelles I sur la Compétence en Matière de Sociétés et de Personnes Morales，ALJB-Bulletin Droit et Banque N°49-Mai 2012.
37.Gerard Conway，Historical Interpretation of Constitutions-the EU and US Compared，http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/QUEST/FileStore/Issue6/Filetoupload，146243，en.pdf.
38.Takis Tridimas，Abuse of Right in EU Law：Some Reflections with particular Reference to Financial Law，Queen Mary University of London，School of Law，Legal Studies Research Paper No.27/2009，http://ssrn.com/abstract=1438577.
39.Adrian Briggs，The Impact of Recent Judgments of the European Court on English Procedural Law and Practice，http://www.ssrn.com/link/oxford-legal-studies.html.
40.Xandra E.Kramer，Provisional and Protective Measures：Article 24 Brussels Convention（=Article 31 Brussels Regulation）The Application in the Netherlands，Germany and England（May 20，2000），http://ssrn.com/abstract=1129709.
41.Mattias Wendel，Die Auslegung der Verfassung für Europa：Interpretationsgrundsätze und die Bedeutung der Erläuterungen des Konventspräsidiums nach Art.Ⅱ-112 Abs.7 VVE，WHI-Paper 4/2005，http://www.whi-berlin.de/documents/whi-paper0405.pdf.
42.Stéphanie Francq，Eduardo Alvarez Armas ＆ Marie Dechamps，L'actualité de L'article 5.1 du Règlement Bruxelles I：Evaluation des Premiers Arrêts Interprétatifs portant sur la Dispisition relative à la Compétence Judiciaire Internationale en Matière Contractuelle，CeDIE Working Paper，N°2011/02，www.uclouvain.be/cedie.
三、欧洲法院判例与法务官意见
1.Case C-26/62 Van Gend en Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration［1963］ECR 3.
2.Case C-6/64 Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L.［1964］ECR 1141.
3.Case C-33/74 Van Binsbergen v Bedrijfsvereniging Metaalnijverheid［1974］ECR 1299.
4.Case C-12/76 Tessili v Dunlop［1976］ECR 1473.
5.Case C-21/76 Bier v Mines de potasse d'Alsace［1976］ECR 1735.
6.Case C-24/76 Salotti v Rüwa［1976］ECR 1831.
7.Case C-25/76 Segoura v Bonakdarian［1976］ECR 1851.
8.Case C-9/77 Bavria v Eurocontrol［1977］ECR 1517.
9.Case C-43/77 Diamond v Riva［1977］ECR 2175.
10.Case C-23/78 Meeth v Glacetal［1978］ECR 2133.
11.Case C-125/79 Denilauler v Couchet Frères［1980］ECR 1553.
12.Case C-150/80 Elefanten Schuh v Jacqmain［1981］ECR 1671.(https://www.daowen.com)
13.Case C-166/80 Klomps v Michel［1981］ECR 1593.
14.Case C-25/81 C.H.W.v G.J.H.［1982］ECR 1189.
15.Case C-27/81 Rohr v Ossberger［1981］ECR 2431.
16.Case C-38/81 Effer v Kantner［1982］ECR 825.
17.Case C-133/81 Ivenel v Schwab［1982］ECR 1891.
18.Case C-228/81 Pendy v Pluspunkt［1982］ECR 2723.
19.Case C-201/82 Gerling v Tesoro［1983］ECR 2503.
20.Case C-288/82 Duijnstee v Goderbauer［1983］ECR 3663.
21.Case C-129/83 Zelger v Salinitri［1984］ECR 2397.
22.Case C-178/83 Firma P v Firma K［1984］ECR 3033.
23.Case C-258/83 Brennero v Wendel［1984］ECR 3971.
24.Case C-48/84 Spitzley v Sommer［1985］ECR 787.
25.Case C-119/84 Capelloni v Pelkmans［1985］ECR 3147.
26.Case C-221/84 Berghöfer v ASA［1985］ECR 2699.
27.Case C-220/84 Autoteile v Malhé［1985］ECR 2267.
28.Case C-198/85 Carron v Federal Republic of Germany［1986］ECR 2437.
29.Case C-266/85 Shenavai v Kreischer［1987］ECR 239.
30.Case C-144/86 Gubisch v Palumbo［1987］ECR 4861.
31.Case C-145/86 Hoffmann v Krieg［1988］ECR 645.
32.Case C-189/87 Kalfelis v Schröder［1988］ECR 5565.
33.Case C-32/88 Six Constructions v Humbert［1989］ECR 341.
34.Case C-220/88 Dumez France v Hessische Landersbank［1990］ECR I-49.
35.Case C-305/88 Lancray v Peters［1990］ECR I-2725.
36.Case C-365/88 Hagen v Zeehaghe［1990］ECR I-1845.
37.Case C-190/89 Rich v Impianti［1991］ECR I-3855.
38.Case C-214/89 Duffryn v Petereit［1992］ECR I-1745.
39.Case C-351/89 OUI v NHIC［1991］ECR I-3317.
40.Case C-26/91 Handte v TMCS［1992］ECR I-3967.
41.Case C-89/91 Shearson v TVB［1993］ECR I-139.
42.Case C-125/92 Mulox v Geels［1993］ECR I-4057.
43.Case C-288/92 Custom Made v Stawa Metallbau［1994］ECR I-2913.
44.Case C-406/92 Tatry v Maciej Rataj［1994］ECR I-5439.
45.Case 432/93 SISRO v Ampersand［1995］ECR I-2269.
46.Case C-206/94 Brennet v Paletta［1996］ECR I-2357.
47.Case C-275/94 Van der Linden v Berufsgenossenschaft［1996］ECR I-1393.
48.Case C-78/95 Hendrikman v Magenta［1996］ECR I-4943.
49.Case C-106/95 MSG v Les Gravières Rhénanes［1997］ECR I-911.
50.Case C-269/95 Benincasa v Dentalkit［1997］ECR I-3767.
51.Case C-295/95 Farrell v Long［1997］ECR I-1683.
52.Case C-391/95 Van Uden v Deco-Line［1998］ECR I-7091.
53.Case C-99/96 Mietz v Intership［1999］ECR I-2277.
54.Case C-367/96 Kefalas v Dimosio［1998］ECR I-2843.
55.Case C-373/97 Dionysios Diamantis v Elliniko Dimosio［2000］ECR I-1750.
56.Case C-260/97 Unibank v Christensen［1999］ECR I-3715.
57.Case C-267/97 Coursier v Fortis Bank［1999］ECR I-2543.
58.Case C-440/97 Concorde v Panjan［1999］ECR I-6307.
59.Case C-7/98 Krombach v Bamberski［2000］ECR I-1935.
60.Case C-38/98 Renault v Maxicar［2000］ECR I-2973.
61.Case C-387/98 Coreck v Handelsveem［2000］ECR I-9337.
62.Case C-412/98 Josi Reinsurance v UGIC［2000］ECR I-5925.
63.Case C-110/99 Emsland-Stärke v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas［2000］ECR I-11569.
64.Case C-80/00 Leather v Polstermöbel［2002］ECR I-4995.
65.Case C-96/00 Rudolf Gabriel［2002］ECR I-6367.
66.Case C-167/00 Konsumenteninformation v Henkel［2002］ECR I-8111.
67.Case C-256/00 Besix v Kretzschmar，［2002］ECR I-1699.
68.Case C-116/02 Gasser v MISAT［2003］ECR I-14693.
69.Case C-159/02 Turner v Grovit［2004］ECR I-3565.
70.Case C-281/02 Owusu v Jackson［2005］ECR I-1383.
71.Case C-4/03 Gesellschaft für Antriebstechnik v Lamellen und Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs［2006］ECR I-6509.
72.Case C-104/03 St.Paul Dairy v Unibel Exser［2005］ECR I-3481.
73.Case C-386/05 Color Drack v Lexx［2007］ECR I-03699.
74.Case C-185/07 Allianz v West Tankers［2009］ECR I-663.
75.Case C-372/07 Hassett and Doherty［2008］ECR I-7403.
76.Case C-204/08 Peter Rehder v Air Baltic［2009］ECR I-6073.
77.Case C-19/09 Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger v Silva［2010］ECR I-2121.
78.Case C-144/10 BVG v JP Morgan Chase Bank［2011］ECR I-3961.
79.Opinion of the Advocate General Tesauro，delivered on 4 February 1998，C-367/96，Kefalas v Dimosio.
80.Opinion of the Advocate La Pergola，delivered on 16 July 1998，C-212/97，Centros v Erhvervs-og Selskabsstyrelsen.
81.Opinion of the Advocate General Léger，delivered on 14 December 2004，C-281/02，Owusu v Jackson.
82.Opinion of the Advocate General Geelhoed，delivered on 16 September 2004，Case C-4/03，Gesellschaft für Antriebstechnik v Lamellen und Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs.
83.Opinion of the Advocate General Bot，delivered on 15 February 2007，C-386/05，Color Drack v Lexx.
84.Opinion of the Advocate General Kokott，delivered on 4 September 2008，C-185/07，Allianz v West Tankers.