Skip to main content
Top
Published in:
Cover of the book

2017 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

1. Introduction

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Effective mechanisms for the cross-border recognition and enforcement of civil judgments has long been a priority for the European Union, since judicial cooperation is a prerequisite for the functioning of the internal market. For a long time, EU legislation balanced judgment creditors’ with judgment debtors’ rights by combining a harmonized procedure for requesting a declaration of enforceability in the Member State of enforcement (exequatur) with limited grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement. Since the introduction of the principle of mutual recognition in 1999, the EU legislature’s focus has shifted towards simplification or even abolition of this procedure. This move towards simplification has resulted in the removal of formal requirements for enforcement in another Member State of judgments falling within the scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation, which is to say most civil and commercial judgments. For some categories of judgments, it has also, more controversially, resulted in the abolition of the grounds of refusal of enforcement and recognition that were previously available. This book examines these developments for their conformity with European fundamental rights law, specifically the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights (EU CFR). This is an important and timely issue, since the European Union increasingly presents itself as a fundamental rights organisation. The topic of mutual recognition of judgments also raises profound questions about the nature of European integration and the role of fundamental rights in that respect.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Footnotes
1
Not published; Kramer (2003) p. 16.
 
2
Court of Appeal, Maronier v. Larmer [2002] EWCA Civ 774. See Beaumont and Johnston (2010) p. 255.
 
3
Jenard (1979) p. 3.
 
4
Article 220, Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, Rome 1957, OJ 25 March 1957.
 
5
Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, done at Lugano on 16 September 1988; Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Brussels.
 
6
Article 34(1) Brussels I Regulation.
 
7
Article 34(2) Brussels I Regulation.
 
8
Article 65, Treaty Establishing the European Community (Amsterdam consolidated version) OJ C340/173, 1997. Under the current Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) judicial cooperation in civil matters is based on Title V (Articles 67–89) of Part III. With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.
 
9
Not all authors agree that this paradigm is no longer valid in the EU framework: Lopez de Tejada argues that abolition of exequatur is unwise mainly because it would remove Member States’ control powers to check whether judgments conform to domestic standards. Lopez de Tejada (2013) pp. 115–117.
 
10
Tampere European Council, 15–16 October 1999, Presidency Conclusions.
 
11
CJEU Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein, ECLI:EU:C:1979:42, para 14; also known as Cassis de Dijon.
 
12
Statistical data show that, in the period 1959–2011, the ECtHR delivered a total of 3672 judgments in which a violation of Article 6 was found (still excluding complaints about the length of proceedings) making it the most violated provision of the ECHR. See Table of Violations 19592011 at http://​www.​echr.​coe.​int/​ECHR/​EN/​Header/​Reports+and+Stat​istics/​Statistics/​Statistical+data​/​.
 
13
Kramer (2011) p. 217.
 
14
European Council, The Hague Programme: Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the European Union, 2005, OJ C 53/01.
 
15
European Council, The Stockholm Programmean open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens, OJ C/115/10, 2010.
 
16
European Commission, The EU Justice Agenda for 2020. Strengthening Trust, Mobility and Growth within the Union, COM (2014) 144 final, 2014.
 
17
Kramer (2011) p. 209.
 
18
Regulation (EU) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 351/1. This Regulation is a recast of Regulation 44/2001 (the Brussels I Regulation).
 
19
See among others Cuniberti and Rueda (2011); Van der Grinten (2006); Beaumont and Johnston (2010); Oberhammer (2010); Frąckowiak-Adamska (2015); Lopez de Tejada (2013); Schack (2011); Timmer (2013).
 
20
Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, OJ L 134/15 (the ‘EEO Regulation’), Article 5.
 
21
Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, OJ L 199/1.
 
22
Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European Order for Payment Procedure, OJ L 399/1.
 
23
Council Regulation (EC) 4/2009 of 18 December 2009 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, OJ L7/1.
 
24
Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, OJ L 338/1, Article 42.
 
25
Ibid., Article 41.
 
26
Since the European Union is as of yet not a member of the Council of Europe and not a signatory to the ECHR, the ECtHR considers it has no jurisdiction to review actions of the EU as an organisation. The ECtHR however does entertain applications against the EU’s Member States, such as in ECtHR Andreasen v. the United Kingdom and 26 other Member States of the European Union (dec), appl. no. 28827/11, 31 March 2015; see 5.4.6. It also reviews actions of EU Member States where they act in the implementation of their obligations under EU law, though this review is limited where States have no discretion; see ECtHR Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland, appl. no. 45036/98, 30 June 2005, ECHR 2005-VI, discussed in detail in Chap. 5.
 
27
Supra note 19.
 
28
Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union proclaims that ‘the Union is founded on the values of respect to human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights’. Article 6(1) provides that the Charter shall have the same legal value of the Treaties, whereas Article 6(3) provides that ‘fundamental rights […] shall constitute general principles of the Union’s law’.
 
29
See Sanna (2011).
 
30
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000, OJ C 364/01.
 
31
European Court of Human Rights, Case of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, appl. no. 30696/09, 21 January 2011.
 
32
CJEU Joined Cases C‑411/10 and C‑493/10, N.S. and M.E. and others.
 
33
Opinion 2/13 of the Court (Full Court) of 18 December 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454.
 
34
CJEU Case C‑399/11 Stefano Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal, ECLI:EU:C:2013:107; CJEU Case C‑396/11 Ciprian Vasile Radu, ECLI:EU:C:2013:39.
 
35
See for a general overview of the topic Koch (2008).
 
36
Hess et al. (2007).
 
37
Hess and Pfeiffer (2011).
 
38
ECtHR Avotins v. Latvia [GC], appl. no. 17502/07, 23 May 2016.
 
Literature
go back to reference Beaumont P, Johnston E (2010) Can exequatur be abolished in Brussels I whilst retaining a public policy defence? J Private Int Law 6:249–279CrossRef Beaumont P, Johnston E (2010) Can exequatur be abolished in Brussels I whilst retaining a public policy defence? J Private Int Law 6:249–279CrossRef
go back to reference Cuniberti G, Rueda I (2011) Abolition of Exequatur: Addressing the Commission’s Concerns. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 75:286–316CrossRef Cuniberti G, Rueda I (2011) Abolition of Exequatur: Addressing the Commission’s Concerns. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 75:286–316CrossRef
go back to reference Frąckowiak-Adamska A (2015) Time for a European “Full Faith and Credit Clause”. Common Mark Law Rev 52:1–28 Frąckowiak-Adamska A (2015) Time for a European “Full Faith and Credit Clause”. Common Mark Law Rev 52:1–28
go back to reference Hess B, Pfeiffer T (2011) Interpretation of the Public Policy Exception as referred to in EU Instruments of Private International and Procedural Law. Study for the European Parliament. European Parliament, Brussels Hess B, Pfeiffer T (2011) Interpretation of the Public Policy Exception as referred to in EU Instruments of Private International and Procedural Law. Study for the European Parliament. European Parliament, Brussels
go back to reference Hess B, Pfeiffer T, Schlosser P (2007) Report on the Application of Regulation Brussels I in the Member States. Ruprecht-Karls-Universität, Heidelberg Hess B, Pfeiffer T, Schlosser P (2007) Report on the Application of Regulation Brussels I in the Member States. Ruprecht-Karls-Universität, Heidelberg
go back to reference Jenard P (1979) Report on the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (signed at Brussels, 27 September 1968), OJ C 59/1 Jenard P (1979) Report on the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (signed at Brussels, 27 September 1968), OJ C 59/1
go back to reference Koch IE (2008) Human Rights: A conflict between positive individual and collective democratic interests? Erasmus Law Lectures no. 12, Boom Juridische uitgevers, The Hague Koch IE (2008) Human Rights: A conflict between positive individual and collective democratic interests? Erasmus Law Lectures no. 12, Boom Juridische uitgevers, The Hague
go back to reference Kramer XE (2003) Enforcement under the Brussels Convention: Procedural public policy and the influence of Article 6 ECHR. Int’l Lis 2003:16–20 Kramer XE (2003) Enforcement under the Brussels Convention: Procedural public policy and the influence of Article 6 ECHR. Int’l Lis 2003:16–20
go back to reference Kramer XE (2011) Cross-Border Enforcement in the EU: Mutual Trust versus Fair Trial? Towards Principles of European Civil Procedure. Int J Proced Law 1:202–230 Kramer XE (2011) Cross-Border Enforcement in the EU: Mutual Trust versus Fair Trial? Towards Principles of European Civil Procedure. Int J Proced Law 1:202–230
go back to reference Lopez de Tejada M (2013) La disparation de l’exequatur dans l’ espace judiciaire europeen. LGDJ/Lextenso Editions, Paris Lopez de Tejada M (2013) La disparation de l’exequatur dans l’ espace judiciaire europeen. LGDJ/Lextenso Editions, Paris
go back to reference Oberhammer P (2010) The abolition of exequatur. Praxis der Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrenrechts (IPRax) 30:197–203 Oberhammer P (2010) The abolition of exequatur. Praxis der Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrenrechts (IPRax) 30:197–203
go back to reference Sanna G (2011) Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Its Impact on Judicial Cooperation in Civil and Commercial Matters. In: Di Federico G (ed) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: from Declaration to Binding Instrument. Springer, Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York Sanna G (2011) Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Its Impact on Judicial Cooperation in Civil and Commercial Matters. In: Di Federico G (ed) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: from Declaration to Binding Instrument. Springer, Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York
go back to reference Schack H (2011) The misguided abolition of exequatur proceedings in the European Union. In: Gudowski J, Weitz K (eds) Festschrift für Tadeusz Erecinski. LexisNexis Polska, Warsaw Schack H (2011) The misguided abolition of exequatur proceedings in the European Union. In: Gudowski J, Weitz K (eds) Festschrift für Tadeusz Erecinski. LexisNexis Polska, Warsaw
go back to reference Timmer LJE (2013) Abolition of Exequatur under the Brussels I Regulation: Ill Conceived and Premature? J Private Int Law 9:129–147CrossRef Timmer LJE (2013) Abolition of Exequatur under the Brussels I Regulation: Ill Conceived and Premature? J Private Int Law 9:129–147CrossRef
go back to reference Van der Grinten P (2006) Abolishing Exequatur in the European Union: An Alternative. In: Van der Grinten P, Heukels T (eds) Crossing Borders. Essays in European and Private International Law, Nationality Law and Islamic Law in Honour of Frans van der Velden. Kluwer, Deventer, pp 71–83 Van der Grinten P (2006) Abolishing Exequatur in the European Union: An Alternative. In: Van der Grinten P, Heukels T (eds) Crossing Borders. Essays in European and Private International Law, Nationality Law and Islamic Law in Honour of Frans van der Velden. Kluwer, Deventer, pp 71–83
Metadata
Title
Introduction
Author
Monique Hazelhorst
Copyright Year
2017
Publisher
T.M.C. Asser Press
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-162-3_1