nach oben

Erschienen in:

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

7. Towards an ‘Emergency Brake’ in EU Instruments on Free Movement of Civil Judgments

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 proposes that European Union (EU) regulations on recognition and enforcement should retain an ‘emergency brake’ of the kind provided by the public policy exception: a ground for refusal of recognition or enforcement, capable of remedying fundamental rights violations, that can be applied by the Member State where recognition or enforcement is sought (the Member State addressed). An emergency brake is necessary because, in some cases, parties affected by the violations are unable to invoke a remedy in the Member State of origin, but also because Member States may not be able to critically assess and disqualify their own legal system and judicial culture. An important example of such a situation is where the judgment was obtained through corruption of the judiciary. This chapter discusses what such an emergency brake should look like. It concludes that it is preferable, with a view to protecting the right to a fair trial, to retain a public policy exception, instead of replacing this with an explicit reference to fair trial, The chapter also provides guidelines for the application of such an emergency brake. It then discusses the need for other more specific refusal grounds, such as the protection for the defaulting defendant provided by Article 45(1)(b) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. Finally, it discusses the specific context of judgments ordering the return of the child or access to a child.

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 Free Movement of Civil Judgments and European Union Fundamental Rights Law

Nächstes Kapitel Facilitating Enforcement of Civil Judgments Across European Union Member States

Section 3.2.7.

Section 3.4.1.

De Cristofaro concludes that the “goal of enhancing free movement on the basis of absolute mutual recognition cannot be attained to the detriment of fundamental rights”; De Cristofaro (2011) p. 451; Frąckowiak-Adamska (2015); Lopez de Tejada (2013); Schlosser (2010) p. 103; Oberhammer (2010) p. 202; Kramer (2011b) p. 640; Dickinson (2011) pp. 8–10; Schack (2011); Vlas (2013) p. 624; Layton (2011) p. 7. Contra: Hess (2001) p. 394; Stein (2004) p. 182.

Cuniberti and Rueda (2011) p. 302.

Kramer (2011b) p. 221; De Cristofaro (2011) p. 451; Muir Watt (2001) p. 554.

Section 2.2.2.

See Sects. 2.3.6 and 2.3.7; Kramer (2011b) pp. 226–228.

In a recent judgment, eco cosmetics/Raiffeisenbank, the CJEU ruled that a European order for payment that was not served in accordance with those standards could not benefit from the enforcement regime of the EOP Regulation: CJEU Case C-119/13 and 120/13 eco cosmetics and Raiffeisenbank para 483. See 8.5.1.

Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, OJ L 324/79 (‘Service Regulation’).

See for example the reports of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) whose reports are available at http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/default_en.asp.

See for example their ‘Rule of Law Project’, available at http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/#.

For example, the country report concerning Bulgaria pointed towards ‘integrity challenges’ concerning the nomination and selection of Constitutional Justices and ‘flaws’ in the Parliaments involvement in judicial appointments (p. 9) while the report on Hungary highlights some serious concerns regarding such matters as the premature termination of the mandate of the former president of the Supreme Court, extensive powers attributed to the President of the National Judicial council (an administrative body) to transfer cases (pp. 4–5). European Commission, EU Anti-Corruption Report 2014, country reports of Bulgaria and Hungary, available at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/organized-crime-and-human-trafficking/corruption/anti-corruption-report/index_en.htm.

European Commission, The EU Justice Scoreboard, COM(2013) 160 final, p. 21.

Kramer (2012) p. 129; Stadler (2004) p. 8.

Stadler (2004) p. 8.

See under 7.3.7.6.

Section 2.2.2.

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast) COM(2010) 748 final (2010 Proposal).

Layton (2011) p. 7; Dickinson (2011) pp. 8–9; Nielsen (2012) pp. 592–593; Kramer (2011a) p. 640; Cuniberti and Rueda (2011) pp. 312–315.

European Parliament, Draft Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) [COM(2010)0748—C7-0433/2010–2010/0383(COD)] 28 June 2011, pp. 26–27.

Layton (2011) p. 7; Dickinson (2011) pp. 8–9.

Section 3.2.5.

E.g. Frąckowiak-Adamska (2015) p. 25.

Section 7.2.5.

For instance, Article 33 of the recently adopted Insolvency Regulation refers to the Member State’s “public policy, in particular its fundamental principles or the constitutional rights and liberties of the individual’. Regulation (EU) 2015/… of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (recast) 2012/0360 (COD) LEX 1607, PE-CONS 31/15 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

Section 3.2.

See 7.2.6.

Hess and Pfeiffer (2011) p. 155.

The right to a fair trial can be found in the Magna Carta, the charter of rights agreed between King John of England and a number of rival barons in 1215, a document which influenced the constitutional development of England, the United States and the entire modern world: Van Caenegem (1995) p. 80. It is also apparent in the maxim of audiatur et alteram pars (or audite et alteram partem), loosely translated as the principle of an adversarial trial, which was found in Roman law. See Smits (2008) p. 97.

See for the Netherlands Smits (2008) pp. 19–20.

CJEU Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission ECLI:EU:C:2008:461, para 285.

CJEU Krombach v. Bamberski paras 38–39; Case C-394/07 Marco Gambazzi v. DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc. and CIBC Mellon Trust Company ECLI:EU:C:2009:219, para 28.

Hess and Pfeiffer (2011) pp. 57–59.

Hess and Pfeiffer (2011) p. 155.

Section 3.2.6.

Beaumont and Johnston (2010) p. 261.

Though the remit of substantive public policy is very limited, as shown by a case such as Diageo v. Simiramida, it may nevertheless play a role in the protection of fundamental rights (CJEU Case C 681/13 Diageo Brands v Simiramida-04 EOOD ECLI:EU:C:2015:471, discussed in Sect. 3.2.4; see Hazelhorst (2016). See Sect. 7.2.5.

ECtHR Golder v. UK, appl. no. 4451/70 ECHR A18.

Kiestra (2014) p. 38.

See below.

See 4.3.3.

Gerards (2011) p. 108; Kiestra (2014) p. 41.

Section 4.3.2.1; Arai (2001) p. 35; ECtHR Golder, para 38.

Arai shows that the ECtHR has over time become more stringent in its assessment whether limitations on the right to access were proportional: Arai (2001) pp. 39–43.

E.g. ECtHR Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, appl. no. 10590/83 ECHR A146; ECtHR Kostovski v. The Netherlands (merits), appl. no. 11454/85 A166.

Mole and Harby (2006) p. 6; Sect. 4.2.4.

Van Dijk and Viering (2006) p. 579; Smits (2008) p. 99.

ECtHR Handyside v. UK, appl. no. 5493/72 ECHR A24 para 48.

Legg (2012) p. 210.

ECtHR Ashingdane v. UK, appl. no. 8225/78 ECHR A93; see 4.2.4.

Arai (2001) p. 49.

Arai (2001) p. 50; compare e.g. ECtHR Campbell and Fell v. UK, appl. nos. 7819/77 7878/77 ECHR A80, para 87 (public security) with the stricter approach in ECtHR Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium [merits], appl. nos. 6878/75 7238/75 ECHR A43 (professional secrecy and the right to privacy of doctors and their patients).

Section 4.3.2.7.

See for example the extensive examination of the parties’ arguments and submissions and whether they needed to be discussed in the judgment in ECtHR Ruiz Torija v. Spain, appl. no. 18390/91, ECHR A303-A, para 30.

ECtHR Delcourt v. Belgium, appl. no. 2689/65 ECHR A11 para 25.

ECtHR Garcia Ruiz v. Spain, appl. no. 30544/96 ECHR 1999-I, para 48; Harris et al. (2014) p. 18.

See Harris et al. (2014) p. 371.

ECtHR Andelkovic v. Serbia, appl. no. 1401/08, 9 April 2013, para 27. See further 3.4.2.

ECtHR Albu and others v. Romania, appl. no. 34796/09 and 63 other cases, 10 May 2012; see 3.3.2.

Jenard (1979) para A1.198.

It was discussed that public policy performs a residual function with regard to the other, more specific grounds for refusal; see 2.23; CJEU Case 145/86 Hoffman v Krieg ECLI:EU:C:1988:61, para 21.

ECtHR Albu and others v. Romania, para 21.

Article 52, Brussels I Regulation; Article 26 Brussels IIbis Regulation; Article 41 Succession Regulation.

Some examples are discussed under 7.2.4.

Corthaut (2012) pp. 186–187.

CJEU Krombach v. Bamberski, para 37.

Hess and Pfeiffer (2011) pp. 57–59; see the discussion under 7.2.3.

Corthaut (2012) p. 23.

Section 3.2.1.

Schilling (2012) p. 569.

CJEU Krombach v. Bamberski, para 37.

Section 3.2.5.

CJEU Krombach v. Bamberski, para 37.

Layton and Mercer (2004) no. 26.021; Theillol v Office de la Jeunesse de Fribourg, Journal de Droit International 1979, p. 383.

Layton and Mercer (2004) no. 26.021; Cozzi v Dame Capurro et autres, Bull. Cass. 1979, Part I, no. 286.

Rb Middelburg 23 September 2009, ECLI:NL:RBMID:2009:BK9209.

HR 27-6-2008, ECLI:NL:PHR:2008:BD2007.

HR 5 April 2002, ECLI:NL:HR:2002:AD9145.

Hoge Raad 18 March 2011, ECLI:NL:HR:2011:BP0003.

Hess and Pfeiffer (2011) p. 55.

2010 Proposal, Article 46(1) p. 42.

More examples can be found than the ones discussed in these sections. One possible example is a Hungarian judgment referred to in the 2011 Report on the application of public policy, where enforcement was refused because the judgment contravened the Hungarian principle that one should be able to litigate in one’s native language (Hess and Pfeiffer 2011, pp. 53–54). Though the right to a fair trial may include a right of the defendant to translation of the document instituting the proceedings into a language he understands, it arguably does not include a right to litigate in one’s native language before a foreign court. See Ontanu and Pannebakker (2012) pp. 171–172, European Commission of Human Rights X and Y v. Austria 9099/80 DR 27, p. 209.

Ortolani (2015).

Hartley (2014) p. 9; Hess and Pfeiffer (2011) p. 67; shows the UK view on this matter.

CJEU Case C-159/02 Turner v Grovit ECLI:EU:C:2004:228.

See also Ortolani (2015) p. 17. He raises the interesting question whether the principle of mutual trust as such has public policy status in the EU.

Hartley (2015) p. 410.

For example, in a Dutch case under The Hague Child Abduction Convention, the child’s habitual residence was said to be Portugal on the basis of an agreement between the parents on which the mother’s signature was allegedly forged. See Rechtbank Den Haag 6 March 2009, ECLI:NL:RBSGR:2009:BJ0317.

Hartley (2015) p. 410. French law also recognises the separate refusal ground of fraude à la loi, which involves parties manipulating certain connecting factors in order to ensure the application of certain law to their dispute. It may also encompass the misrepresentation of facts that touches upon the rights of the defendant. See Rosner (2004) p. 249.

Franq (2016) pp. 888–889, p. 27; Schlosser Report on Brussels Convention (1979) para 192. In the Netherlands, for instance, public policy encompasses procedural fraud as well; see Rosner (2004) p. 44, who cites a judgment of the Rechtbank Alkmaar, 7 June 1984, in which the claimant in the original proceedings had wrongfully claimed that it had been impossible to reach the defendant.

Hess et al. (2007) paras 548–558.

Article 1 ECHR creates an obligation to respect human rights, but only for States; furthermore, Article 34 of the ECHR only allows applications to be brought against States, not individuals. The ECtHR has accepted a kind of horizontal application of the ECHR by ruling that States may have a positive obligation to prevent or interfere in certain horizontal situations (see Gerards (2011) p. 264 onwards). Thus far, there does not however appear to be an obligation for States to protect litigants from fraud by their counterparties, if these allegations of fraud were not raised during the proceedings.

ECtHR McDonald v. France [dec.], appl. no. 18648/04, 29 April 2008. See also ECtHR Avotins v. Latvia, appl. no. 17502/07, 25 February 2014.

Areios Pagos Court decision number 1829/2006, 25 October 2006.

Anthimos, A., ‘Excessive English Costs Orders and Greek Public Policy’, http://conflictoflaws.net/, 5 March 2013.

ECtHR Golder v. the United Kingdom, § 36.

ECtHR Tolstoy Miloslavski v. UK, appl. no. 18139/91 20 February 1992, para 61 et seq.

ECtHR Kreuz v. Poland, appl. no. 28249/95 ECHR 2001-VI, para 63; ECtHR Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland, appl. no. 39199/98 26 July 2005, paras 67–68; ECtHR Weissman and Others v. Romania, appl. no. 63945/00 ECHR 2006-VII para 39.

100

Cuniberti (2008).

101

E.g. ECtHR Lhermitte v. Belgium, appl. no. 34238/09 26 May 2015, para 27.

102

See for instance Case C 681/13 Diageo Brands v Simiramida-04 EOOD ECLI:EU:C:2015:471, discussed in Sect. 3.2.4. See Hazelhorst (2016).

103

Vanleenhove (2016); Hazelhorst (2010).

104

Nagy (2012) p. 4.

105

Franq (2016) p. 883.

106

2010 Proposal, Explanatory Memorandum, pp. 8–9.

107

2010 Proposal, Explanatory Memorandum, pp. 7–8.

108

Dickinson (2011) p. 8; Layton (2011) p. 4.

109

Dickinson (2011) p. 8.

110

ECtHR Schalk and Kopf v Austria, appl. no. 30141/04 ECHR 2010 para 105.

111

As described by Oberhammer (2010) pp. 201–202.

112

Case C-7/98 Dieter Krombach v André Bamberski ECLI:EU:C:2000:164, paras 39–40.

113

Dickinson (2011) p. 8; see also the discussion of CJEU Diageo/Simiramida under 3.2.4.

114

Apart from the Regulations on recognition and enforcement discussed in this research, the Rome I and Rome II Regulations on applicable law also contain a public policy exception. Public policy is also one of the grounds for limitation of the free movement of capital, workers, services and goods under the TFEU.

115

Case C-394/07 Marco Gambazzi v. DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc. and CIBC Mellon Trust Company, ECLI:EU:C:2009:219, para 29.

116

CJEU Gambazzi, paras 30 and 49.

117

Franq (2016) p. 894.

118

Kiestra (2014) p. 241. See also the discussion in Sect. 4.3.6.

119

ECtHR Négrépontis-Giannisis (merits), appl. no. 56759/08, 3 May 2011.

120

ECtHR Avotins v. Latvia, appl. no. 17502/07, 25 February 2014.

121

See for example the volume edited by Brems (2008).

122

Gerards (2011) p. 171. See on this method De Schutter and Tulkens (2008) p. 203 onwards.

123

Ducoulombier (2008) p. 234.

124

See for instance ECtHR Von Hannover v. Germany, appl. no. 59320/00 ECHR 2004-VI.

125

Sullivan (1991–1992).

126

De Lange (2008) pp. 72–74.

127

See 4.3.3, and 7.2.3.

128

Sullivan (1991–1992).

Brems (2005) p. 303.

Section 4.4.

Brems (2005) p. 304.

Section 4.4.4.

Brems (2005) p. 304.

Harris et al. (2014) p. 531 onwards.

135

See 4.4.

136

Brems (2005) p. 304.

137

According to the ECtHR the right to free enjoyment of property includes a positive obligation by the State to “ensure in its domestic legal system that property rights are sufficiently protected by law and that adequate remedies are provided whereby the victim of an interference can seek to vindicate his rights”. Article 1 of Protocol 1 therefore includes a right for individuals to effective protection of their property rights (arising out of contract or tort) against interference by other individuals. ECtHR Kotov v Russia, appl. no. 54522/00, 3 March 2012 paras 113–114; ECtHR Blumberga v. Latvia, appl. no. 70930/01, 14 October 2008, para 67; Harris et al. (2014) p. 871.

138

Brems (2005) p. 304.

139

Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3.

140

Section 2.3.1.1; see for a discussion of its implications in specific situations 7.3.7, particularly in the context of the right to an oral hearing.

141

Section 7.3.2. showed that certain elements of the right to a fair trial are subject to a margin of appreciation: notably the admissibility of evidence and the right to a public trial and public pronouncement of the judgment.

142

See 4.3.7.

143

See 4.3.7.2.

144

Section 4.3.7.2; Smits (2008) p. 253.

145

See further under 7.3.7.

146

Brems (2005) p. 304.

147

Cuniberti and Rueda (2011) p. 295.

148

ECtHR K.H. and others v. Slovakia, appl. no. 32881/04 ECHR 2009-II.

149

Fitchen (2015) p. 497.

Ibid.

See under 7.3.7.

See 4.3.2.8.

Layton (2011) pp. 6–7.

154

CJEU Diageo/Simiramida, para 64.

155

ECtHR Deweer v. Belgium, appl. no. 6903/75, ECHR A35.

156

ECtHR Vrbica v. Croatia, appl. no. 32540/05, 1 April 2014, para 66; ECtHR Scollo v. Italy, appl. no. 19133/91 ECHR A315-C, para 44; ECtHR Fuklev v. Ukraine, appl. no. 71186/01, 7 June 2005; ECtHR Sanglier v. France, appl. no. 50342/99 27 May 2003, para 39.

157

ECtHR Sanglier v. France, para 39.

158

ECtHR McDonald v. France.

159

ECtHR Négrépontis-Giannisis, see also ECtHR Avotins v. Latvia.

160

ECtHR Hornsby v. Greece, appl. no. 18357/91 ECHR 1997-II para 40; see also ECtHR Marinkovic v Serbia, appl. no. 5353/11, 22 October 2013.

161

Kiestra discusses to what extent a right to enforcement can be derived from ECHR rights other than fair trial: Kiestra (2014), pp. 216–241.

162

CJEU Krombach v. Bamberski, as discussed in Sect. 3.2.5.

163

The same reasoning applies to the Gambazzi case, discussed under 3.2.5. See also Andrews (2011) p. 43.

164

ECtHR Beer v. Austria, appl. no. 30428/96, 6 February 2001; Court of Appeal, 29 March 2002, Unanimous opinion by Lord Philips MR - Maronier v. Larmer; see under 3.2.6.

165

ECtHR Nideröst-Huber v. Switzerland, appl. no. 18990/91 ECHR 1997-I.

166

ECtHR Nideröst-Huber v. Switzerland, para 30.

167

ECtHR Feldbrugge v Netherlands, (merits), appl. no, 8562/79, ECHR A99.

168

ECtHR A.B. v. Slovakia, appl. no. 41784/98 4 March 2003.

169

ECtHR Cepek v. Czech Republic, appl. no. 9815/10, 5 September 2013.

170

ECtHR Zagrebacka banka v. Croatia, appl. no. 39544/05 12 December 2013.

171

Case C 681/13 Diageo Brands v Simiramida-04 EOOD, ECLI:EU:C:2015:471, para 49; Hazelhorst (2016) p. 13.

172

ECtHR Dhahbi v. Italy, appl. no. 17120/09, 8 April 2014.

173

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"