nach oben

Erschienen in:

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

5. Free Movement of Judgments and the European Convention on Human Rights

verfasst von : Monique Hazelhorst

Erschienen in: Free Movement of Civil Judgments in the European Union and the Right to a Fair Trial

Verlag: T.M.C. Asser Press

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This chapter discusses the difficult question whether the ECHR may oblige EU Member States to refuse enforcement to a judgment from another (EU or non-EU) state. The difficulty here is that while EU Member States must respect the rights contained in the ECHR, they may have little or no discretion when they implement EU legislation. This is especially true where grounds for refusal have been abolished. This raises the question how the fact that EU law governs Member States’ actions relates to their individual responsibility under the ECHR. An analysis of ECtHR case law shows that the frame of reference differs according to whether the Member State enjoys discretion in their decision to enforce a judgment from another Member State. If no discretion remains for the Member States, the ECtHR applies what is called the ‘Bosphorus doctrine’. In its Povse decision, the ECtHR clarified that this frame of reference also applies in the context of cross-border enforcement in the absence of refusal grounds. This chapter analyses the Povse decision against the background of the Bosphorus judgment and other rulings in which the doctrine was applied. This chapter concludes that while the Povse decision leaves a number of matters unclear, it nevertheless provides valuable guidance for future legislation which facilitates free movement. The chapter sums up the preconditions Povse imposes on free movement of civil judgments. It also concludes that where refusal grounds exist, and EU Member States enjoy discretionary power to refuse enforcement, Member States’ actions are subject to full scrutiny by the ECtHR.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

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!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel The Right to a Fair Trial in Civil Cases

Nächstes Kapitel Free Movement of Civil Judgments and European Union Fundamental Rights Law

Chapter 6 discusses in detail how the CJEU interpreted this element in its case law, and what its implications are for civil justice cooperation. See Sect. 6.3.

As case law research for this research was concluded on 1 February 2016, the Grand Chamber’s important judgment in Avotins v. Latvia could not be taken into consideration. This judgment is very relevant to EU Member States’ obligations under the ECHR. The reader should be aware that some of that chapter’s observations are affected by the Grand Chamber ruling. ECtHR Avotins v. Latvia [GC], appl. no. 17502/07, 23 May 2016.

See Sect. 5.2.

Kramer (2011) p. 220.

Stein (2004) p. 187; Hess (2001) p. 394; Kinsch (2014) p. 228.

Christians (2004) p. 119.

Schilling (2011) p. 35.

Costa (2002) p. 475; Fawcett (2007) p. 43. See also Judge Matscher’s Concurring Opinion in Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, in which he holds that “Thus, for example, a State may violate Articles 3 and/or 6 (Articles 3, 6) of the Convention by ordering a person to be extradited or deported to a country, whether or not a member State of the Convention, where he runs a real risk of suffering treatment contrary to those provisions of the Convention” (emphasis added). ECtHR Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain [GC], no. 12747/87, ECHR 1992.

Van Bochove (2007) p. 337; Kramberger Skerl (2011) p. 470.

ECtHR, Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland, appl. no. 45036/98, ECHR 2005-VI.

ECtHR Lindberg v. Sweden [dec.], appl. no. 48198/99, 15 January 2004.

ECtHR Lindberg v. Sweden, para 1 (under ‘(b) The Court’s assessment’).

The matter of which standard should be applied in the context of judicial cooperation between states has repeatedly come before the ECtHR. In Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain [GC], appl. no. 12747/87, ECHR 1992, the ECtHR ruled that enforcement of foreign decisions (in that case an arrest warrant pertaining to the execution of a prison sentence by a judgment in a criminal case) should be refused if the foreign proceedings constituted a “flagrant denial of justice” (para 110). While this qualification is absent from Pellegrini, the ECtHR indicated in Lindberg that this was not deliberate (ECtHR Lindberg v. Sweden, para 1 (under ‘(b) The Court’s assessment’). From these judgments it can be concluded that very serious infringements of the right to a fair trial in the foreign proceedings should therefore lead to non-enforcement. See for an analysis Kiestra (2014) p. 252; Schilling (2012) p. 566 onwards; Oster (2015) pp. 561–565.

ECtHR Lindberg v. Sweden, para 1 (under ‘(b) The Court’s assessment’).

Kiestra (2014) p. 277.

European Commission of Human Rights, M & Co. v. Federal Republic of Germany (dec.), appl. no. 13258/87, D.R. No. 64 p. 138.

ECtHR Bosphorus, para 150.

ECtHR Bosphorus, para 152.

ECtHR Matthews v. United Kingdom [GC], appl. no. 24833/94, ECHR 1999-I.

ECtHR Matthews v. United Kingdom [GC], para 33.

This narrow reading of Matthews was suggested by Lenaerts (2000) p. 575.

The narrow reading suggested by Lenaerts was thus affirmed; see Douglas-Scott (2006) p. 249, and Hinarejos Parga (2006) p. 255.

CJEU Case C-84/95, Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret AS v. Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Ireland and the Attorney General, ECLI:EU:C:1996:312.

CJEU Bosphorus, para 21.

Ibid., para 26.

ECtHR Bosphorus, para 150.

Besselink notes in this regard that “what the ECtHR granted with one hand, it took away with the other”; Besselink (2008) p. 298.

ECtHR Bosphorus, paras 152–154.

According to the Court, “the State responsibility issue raised by the enforcement of a judgment not of a Contracting Party to the Convention is not comparable to compliance with a legal obligation emanating from and international organisation to which Contracting Parties have transferred part of the sovereignty”, para 157.

ECtHR Bosphorus, para 155.

Costello (2006) p. 91.

Besselink (2008) p. 300.

See for comments on this judgment among others Douglas-Scott (2006); Peers (2006); Hinarejos Parga (2006); Besselink (2008); Costello (2006); Lock (2010a); Eckes (2007); Lawson (2010).

See for criticism on the ECtHR’s approach in this regard also Douglas-Scott (2006) pp. 250–251; Costello (2006) p. 103; Lawson (2010) p. 234.

Joint concurring opinion of Judges Rozakis, Tulkens, Traja, Botoucharova, Zagrebelsky and Garlicki, para 3.

Ibid., para 3. This proved to be a controversial aspect of the Povse decision; see further under 5.4.4.

These worries are shared by Peers (2006) p. 454, while Eckes cites a diversity of sources which have expressed their concerns on this point: Eckes (2007) pp. 56–57.

See on this ambiguity also Eckes (2007) pp. 62–63.

Costello also calls the standard required to rebut the presumption “worryingly high” (Costello 2006 p. 102) while Eckes suspects that the high threshold is intended to address the Court’s workload, and that it does not provide full Convention protection: Eckes (2007) p. 64. See further under 5.4.6.

Peers (2006) pp. 452–453.

See under 4.3.5.

The significance of this judgment for cross-border enforcement is examined at length in 6.3.

Section 3.2.

ECtHR Povse v. Austria [dec.], appl. no. 3890/11, ECHR 2013; see Cuniberti (2014); Hazelhorst (2014).

In his comment on the Bosphorus judgment, Peers already foresaw the relevance of that judgment to cross-border enforcement: Peers (2006) p. 453.

See Chap. 2.

On the basis of Article 10 of the Brussels II bis Regulation.

CJEU Case C-211/10 PPU Doris Povse v. Mauro Alpago, ECLI:EU:C:2010:400. See Sect. 5.4.

Since question three is not answered by the CJEU, because it is dependent on an affirmative answer to the first two questions, it is not discussed here.

CJEU Case C-491/10 PPU Joseba Andoni Aguirre Zarraga v. Simone Pelz, ECLI:EU:C:2010:828. See 3.5.

Compliance with EU law by a contracting party constitutes a legitimate general-interest objective; ECtHR Michaud v. France, appl. no. 12323/11, ECHR 2012-VI, para 100; ECtHR Bosphorus, paras 150–151.

ECtHR Michaud, paras 102–104.

Reiterating its judgment in ECtHR Šneersone and Kampanella v. Italy, appl. no. 14737/09, 12 July 2011.

This argument is referred to as the “local remedy rule”: see Kiestra (2014) p. 301. See ECtHR Lindberg: the refusal of recognition may not be used as an alternative for remedy in the country of origin. See under 5.2.1.

European Court of Human Rights, Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria, 2011, (available at http://www.echr.coe.int) para 370; see Gerards (2014) p. 8.

Article 43(1) ECHR.

This conclusion is also supported by the Court’s decision on admissibility in Biret, which was also declared inadmissible after a very brief consideration of the Bosphorus test. ECtHR La Société Établissements Biret et Cie S.A. et la Société Biret International c. 15 Etats [dec.], appl. no. 13762/04.

ECtHR, Case of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, appl. no. 30696/09, ECHR 2011-I.

The broader problem of the definition of “manifest deficiency” is explored in Sect. 5.4.6.

Article 35(1) ECHR. See Kiestra (2014) p. 301.

See Amerasinghe (2004); Kiestra (2014) p. 301.

ECtHR Lindberg v. Sweden; see the discussion under 5.2.1.

ECtHR Šneersone and Kampanella v. Italy.

See in more detail under 8.6.1.1.

ECtHR X. v. Latvia para 106. See Beaumont et al. (2015) p. 43.

Ibid.

This in itself could also be seen as a sign that the ECtHR does not want to question the “equivalence” of the protection provided by the system introduced by Brussels II bis; see under 5.4.2.

See 3.4.2 above.

ECtHR Bosphorus para 21.

ECtHR, Cooperative des Agriculteurs de Mayenne et la Cooperative Laitière Maine-Anjou v. France [dec.], no. 16931/04, ECHR 2006-XV.

European Commission on Human Rights, Procola v. Luxembourg [dec.], no. 14570/89.

ECtHR, Cooperative des Agriculteurs de Mayenne et la Cooperative Laitière Maine-Anjou v. France [dec.].

See Lock (2010a) p. 540.

ECtHR Michaud v. France.

CJEU C-305/05 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others v. Conseil des Ministres, ECLI:EU:C:2007:383.

Apart from the case law cited here, there are numerous other judgments in which the ECtHR affirmed importance of the the preliminary ruling mechanism. In Pafitis, it ruled that a delay resulting from a request for a preliminary ruling could not result in a violation of the reasonable time requirement of Article 6(1) ECHR: ECtHR Pafitis and Others v. Greece, appl. no. 20323/93, ECHR 1998-I, para 95. Recently the Court ruled that a failure to motivate why no preliminary ruling had been requested could in itself constitute a violation of Article 6(1): ECtHR Dhahbi v. Italy, appl. no. 17120/09, para 33. See on the obligation to refer preliminary questions also ECtHR Vergauwen and others v. Belgium, appl. no. 4832/04, 4 April 2012.

See Costello (2006) p. 110.

Though, confusingly, in the Michaud judgment itself it stated that the presumption had been found not to apply—which is different from saying it did apply but was rebutted, because this would imply a manifest deficiency. See ECtHR Michaud, para 115.

ECtHR Povse, para 85.

Cuniberti (2014) para 23.

Cuniberti (2014) para 47.

Costello (2006) p. 120.

Wildhaber, “The Coordination of the Protection of Fundamental Rights in Europe”, Address by the President of the European Court of Human Rights, Geneva, 8 September 2005; cited by Costello (2006) p. 100.

ECtHR Bosphorus, paras 143–148.

Ibid., para 148.

ECtHR Mayenne.

ECtHR Biret; Lock (2010a) p. 544.

CJEU Povse para 40.

CJEU Zarraga, para 46.

ECtHR MSS v Belgium and Greece, appl. no. 30696/09 ECHR 2011-I; see Bossuyt (2011); Clayton (2011).

Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national, OJ L 50/01 (the ‘Dublin II Regulation’). This Regulation has since been repealed by the recast Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, OJ L 180/31 (the “Dublin III Regulation”).

ECtHR Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain [GC], no. 12747/87, ECHR 1992.

ECtHR, T.I. v. United Kingdom [dec.], no. 43844/98, ECHR 2000-III.

ECtHR K.R.S. v. United Kingdom, appl. no. 32733/08 02/12/2008.

Article 20(1) of Regulation 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure; Article 19 of Regulation 1896/2006 establishing a European Order for Payment Procedure; Article 5 of Regulation 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims; Article 17 of Regulation 4/2009 on Maintenance obligations.

The EEO, EOP and ESCP Regulations do allow enforcement to be refused in case of irreconcilability. Though this refusal ground has little to do with fundamental rights but rather with the impossibility of enforcing mutually exclusive judgments, it is of course possible that a case involving its application reaches the ECtHR. In such a case, the Member State concerned would not benefit from the presumption of Convention compliance, given the fact that it clearly enjoyed discretion. See Article 22, EOP Regulation; Article 21, EEO Regulation; Article 22, ESCP Regulation.

100

Franq (2012) p. 651; see the discussion in Sect. 2.3.1.2.

101

Article 39, Brussels I bis Regulation.

102

ECtHR, Cantoni v. France [GC], no. 17862/91, ECHR 1996-V.

103

ECtHR Bosphorus, para 157.

104

Article 34(1) Brussels I, Article 45(1)(a) Brussels I bis; Article 22(a) and 23(a) Brussels II bis Regulation; Article 26 of the Insolvency Regulation.

105

Article 34(2) of the Brussels I Regulation; Article 45(1)(b) of Brussels I bis; Articles 22(b) and 23(c) of Regulation Brussels II bis.

106

Articles 34(3) and (4) of Brussels I; Articles 45(1)(c) and (d) of Brussels I bis: Articles 22(c) and (d) and 23(e) and (f) of Brussels II bis.

107

ECtHR Avotins v. Latvia, appl. no. 17502/07, 25 February 2014. See Requejo Isidro (2015). As mentioned earlier, the Grand Chamber judgment in Avotins is now available (ECtHR Avotins v. Latvia [GC], appl. no. 17502/07, 23 May 2016). Though the Grand Chamber, like the Fourth Chamber, found no violation of Article 6(1) ECHR, it found that Article 34(2) of the Brussels I Regulation left no discretion to the domestic court. It therefore confined itself to assessing whether the conditions of the Bosphorus test had been complied with, finding that there was no evidence of a manifest deficiency. Judges Lemmens and Briede, in their concurring opinion, disagree that it was necessary to deploy the Bosphorus test.

108

ECtHR Avotins v. Latvia; see especially the dissenting opinion by judges Ziemele, Bianku and De Gaetano, who are of the opinion that the way the Latvian court had applied the provision may not have been compatible with EU law. According to the judges in their dissenting opinion, ‘[w]hile the Court is not competent to interpret EU law, we submit that it should not implicitly approve of domestic practices that may go against EU law. This is a new situation for the Court which merits very serious further reflection.’

109

Franq (2012) p. 650 considers it possible to derive from Article 34 Brussels I that a court may of its own motion take grounds for refusal into consideration. Layton and Mercer are of the opinion that the court is obliged to do so (Layton and Mercer 2004 para 24011) while Rauscher provides a very strict reading of the article and submits that grounds for refusal may only be examined on application (Leible et al. 2006 p. 553). It is interesting to note that in a recent judgment the German Bundesgerichtshof considered itself obliged to raise grounds for refusal under the Brussels I Regulation; BGH 12 December 2007, XII ZB 240/05, paras 23–25.

110

In this regard, it appears that the legislature intended to decrease the possibility for national courts to raise refusal grounds of their own motion, by changing the wording of Article 34(1) Brussels I, “A judgment shall not be recognised [if one of the grounds for refusal is found to apply]”, to “On the application of the person against whom enforcement is sought, the enforcement shall be refused if one of the grounds referred to in Article 45 is found to apply” in Article 46 of Brussels I bis (emphasis added).

111

Besselink (2008) p. 300.

112

Lock (2010a) p. 545.

113

Lock (2010a) p. 542.

114

ECtHR Mayenne v. France.

115

European Commission on Human Rights Procola v. Luxembourg.

116

ECtHR Mayenne v. France, para 13.

117

ECtHR Biret.

118

ECtHR Andreasen v. the United Kingdom and 26 other Member States of the European Union (dec), appl. no. 28827/11, 31 March 2015.

119

Case F-40/05, Marta Andreasen v Commission of the European Communities, ECLI:EU:F:2007:189.

120

Case T-17/08 P, Marta Andreasen v European Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2010:374.

121

ECtHR Perez v. Germany (dec.), appl. no. 15521/08, 6 January 2015.

122

CJEU Andreasen v. the United Kingdom and 26 other Member States of the European Union (dec), para 70.

123

ECtHR Perez v. Germany (dec.), para 65.

124

ECtHR Perez v. Germany (dec.) para 90.

125

ECtHR, Coöperatieve Producentenorganisatie van de Nederlandse kokkelvisserij e.a. v. Netherlands [dec.], no. 65542/12, ECHR 2009-I, p. 21.

126

Lock (2010a) p. 541.

127

Cuniberti and Rueda (2011); De Cristofaro (2011).

128

ECtHR Lindberg; see 5.2.

129

ECtHR Šneersone and Kampanella v. Italy.

130

Besselink (2008) p. 300.

131

See for a discussion Jacqué (2011).

132

Draft revised agreement on the accession of the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, 47 + 1(2013)008rev2, available at http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/hrpolicy/Accession/Working_documents_en.asp. See Gragl (2014); Lock (2012, 2010b); Raba (2013).

133

Opinion 2/13 of the Court (Full Court) of 18 December 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454.

134

Barnard, C., Opinion 2/13 on EU accession to the ECHR: looking for the silver lining?, 16-02-2015, at http://www.eulawanalysis.blogspot.nl (last accessed 29/01/2016); Krommendijk et al. (2015); Buyse, CJEU Rules: Draft Agreement on EU Accession to ECHR Incompatible with EU Law, 20-12-2014, at http://www.echrblog.blogspot.com (last accessed 29-01-2016).

135

See also Krommendijk et al. (2015) paras 7–11.

136

Mole (2016).

137

ESCP Recital 9; such an affirmation is absent in the EOP Regulation.

See under 5.4.3.

ECtHR Michaud.

See under 5.4.4.

See Vonken (1993) p. 172; Oster (2015) p. 564.

Amerasinghe CF (2004) Local Remedies in International Law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

Beaumont P, Trimmings K, Walker L, Holliday J (2015) Child abduction: recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Int Comp Law Q 64:39–63CrossRef

Besselink L (2008) The European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights: from sovereign immunity in Bosphorus to full scrutiny under the reform treaty? In: Boerefijn I, Goldschmidt JE (eds) Changing Perceptions of Sovereignty and Human Rights: Essays in Honour of Cees Flinterman. Intersentia Antwerpen, pp 295–309

Bossuyt M (2011). Belgium condemned for inhuman or degrading treatment due to violations by Greece of EU asylum law: M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece, Grand Chamber, European Court of Human Rights, January 21, 2011. European Human Rights Law Review 15:582–597

Christians LL (2004) Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. - 20 juillet 2001. Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 93:106–124

Clayton G (2011) Asylum seekers in Europe: M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece. Human Rights Law Review 11:758–773

Costa J-P (2002) Le Tribunal de la Rote et l’article 6 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme 13:470–476

Costello C (2006) The Bosphorus ruling of the European Court of Human Rights: Fundamental Rights and Blurred Boundaries in Europe. Human Rights Law Rev 6:87–130CrossRef

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 (2014) Abolition de l’exequatur et présomption de protection des droits fondamentaux. A propos de l’ affaire Povse c/ Autriche. Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 103:303–327

De Cristofaro M (2011) The abolition of exequatur proceedings: speeding up the free movement of judgments while preserving the rights of the defense. Int J Proced Law 1:432–457

Douglas-Scott S (2006) Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland, application no. 45036/98, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber) of 30 June 2005, (2006) E.H.R.R. 1. Common Market Law Rev 43:243–254

Eckes C (2007) Does the European Court of Human Rights Provide Protection from the European Community?—The Case of Bosphorus Airways. Eur Public Law 13:47–67CrossRef

Fawcett JJ (2007) The Impact of Article 6(1) of the ECHR on Private International Law. Int Compar Law Q 56:1–48CrossRef

Franq S (2012) Art 34. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Brussels I Regulation. Sellier European Law Publishers, Munich, pp 644–697

Gerards J (2014) Inadmissibility Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: A Critique of the Lack of Reasoning. Human Rights Law Review 14:1–11

Gragl P (2014) A giant leap for European human rights? The final agreement on the European Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. Common Market Law Rev 51:13–58

Hazelhorst MI (2014) The ECtHR’s decision in Povse: guidance for the future of the abolition of exequatur for civil judgments in the European Union. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 2014:27–33

Hess B (2001) Die Integrationsfunktion des europäischen Zivilverfahrensrechts. Praxis der Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrenrechts (IPRax) 21:389–396

Hinarejos Parga A (2006) Bosphorus v Ireland and the protection of fundamental rights in Europe. Eur Law Rev 31:251–259

Jacqué JP (2011) The accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Common Market Law Rev 48:995–1023

Kiestra L (2014) The impact of the ECHR on private international law. An analysis of Strasbourg and selected national case law. TMC Asser Press, The Hague

Kinsch P (2014) Enforcement as a fundamental right. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 32(4):540–544

Kramberger Skerl J (2011) European Public Policy (with an emphasis on exequatur proceedings). J Private Int Law 7:461–490CrossRef

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

Krommendijk J, Beijer M, Van Rossem JWC (2015) EHRC 2015/65 HvJ EU, 18-12-2014, Advies 2/13. European Human Rights Cases 2015 no. 65

Lawson R (2010) Jurisdictional issues: Bosphorus Airlines v. Ireland. Irish Human Rights Law Rev 2010:227–236

Layton A, Mercer H (2004) European Civil Practice. Thomson/Sweet and Maxwell, London

Leible S, Mankowski P, Staudinger A (2006) Verordnung (EG) Nr 44/2001 des Rates vom 22.12.2000 über die gerichtliche Zuständigkeit und die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von Entscheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen (Brüssel I-Vo). In: Rauscher T (ed) Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht. Band I (Brüssel I-Vo Brüssel IIa-Vo) Sellier European Law Publishers, Munich, pp 1–772

Lenaerts K (2000) Fundamental Rights in the European Union. European Law Rev 25:575–581

Lock T (2010a) Beyond Bosphorus: the European Court of Human Rights’ Case Law on the Responsibility of Member States of International Organisations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Human Rights Law Rev 10:529–545CrossRef

Lock T (2010b) EU accession to the ECHR: implications for the judicial review in Strasbourg. Eur Law Rev 35:777–798

Lock T (2012) End of an epic? The draft agreement on the EU’s accession to the ECHR. Yearbook Eur Law 31:162–197CrossRef

Mole N (2016) Can Bosphorus be maintained? ERA Forum 16:467–480CrossRef

Oster J (2015) Public policy and human rights. J Private Int Law 11:542–567

Peers S (2006) Bosphorus. European Court of Human Rights. Limited responsibility of European Union Member States for actions within the scope of Community law. Judgment of 30 June 2005, Bosphorus Airways v. Ireland, Application No. 45036/98. Eur Const Law Rev 2:443–456CrossRef

Raba K (2013) The accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights—overview of the Accession Agreement. ERA Forum 14:557CrossRef

Requejo Isidro M (2015) On exequatur and the ECHR: Brussels I Regulation before the ECtHR. Praxis der Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrenrechts (IPRax) 35:69–75

Schilling T (2011) Das Exequatur und die EMRK. Praxis der Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrenrechts (IPRax) 31:31–40

Schilling T (2012) The Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 48:545–572

Stein A (2004) Der Europäische Vollstreckungstitle für unbestrittene Forderungen tritt in Kraft—Aufruf zu einer nüchternen Betrachtung. Praxis der Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrenrechts (IPRax) 24:181–191

Van Bochove L (2007) Het ontbreken van de openbare orde-exceptie in de nieuwe generatie Europese procesrechtelijke verordeningen in het licht van artikel 6 lid 1 EVRM. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 25(4):331–339

Vonken APMJ (1993) De reflexwerking van de mensenrechten op het IPR. In: Cliteur PB, Vonken APMJ (eds) Doorwerking van mensenrechten. Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen, pp 153–185

Titel: Free Movement of Judgments and the European Convention on Human Rights
verfasst von: Monique Hazelhorst
Verlag: T.M.C. Asser Press
Buch: Free Movement of Civil Judgments in the European Union and the Right to a Fair Trial
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-161-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-94-6265-162-3

Copyright-Jahr: 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-162-3_5

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"